James MacWhyte [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-03-16 📝 Original message:We have removed the BIP70 ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-03-16
📝 Original message:We have removed the BIP70 field extensions from this BIP and will save that
for another time. A PR to add our documentation to the main repo has been
submitted.
James
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Replying to the "fee" part of BIP75 (which as already noted should go to
> a different BIP number imho):
>
> It makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee
> doesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. In
> extreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be
> unspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a
> high enough rate...
>
> Rather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover
> should be declared.
>
> Also, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted
> from the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which
> understands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only.
> The wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can
> send the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee
> amount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it
> would display just the exceeding amount.
>
>
>
>
> On 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separate
> > BIP. What do others think? I’d prefer to keep them together if the
> > changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP’s, but thats
> > not a strong preference.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with
> > other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs,
> > especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with
> > secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication.
> >
> >
> > On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been
> assigned
> > > number 75. Also, the title has been changed to "Out of Band Address
> > > Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption" to be more accurate.
> > >
> > > We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some
> > > optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new
> > fields are:
> > > subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the
> > > requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the
> minimum
> > > fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee
> > (whether or
> > > not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with
> zeroconf). I
> > > know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with
> > > zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse
> RBF
> > > transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based
> on
> > > who you are transacting with).
> > >
> > > I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it
> > should be
> > > fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these
> > > fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please
> > take a
> > > look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any
> > concerns:
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails
> > >
> > > The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Justin W. Newton
> > Founder/CEO
> > Netki, Inc.
> >
> > justin at netki.com <mailto:justin at netki.com>
> > +1.818.261.4248 <tel:+1.818.261.4248>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160317/240febd4/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:We have removed the BIP70 field extensions from this BIP and will save that
for another time. A PR to add our documentation to the main repo has been
submitted.
James
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Replying to the "fee" part of BIP75 (which as already noted should go to
> a different BIP number imho):
>
> It makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee
> doesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. In
> extreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be
> unspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a
> high enough rate...
>
> Rather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover
> should be declared.
>
> Also, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted
> from the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which
> understands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only.
> The wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can
> send the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee
> amount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it
> would display just the exceeding amount.
>
>
>
>
> On 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separate
> > BIP. What do others think? I’d prefer to keep them together if the
> > changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP’s, but thats
> > not a strong preference.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with
> > other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs,
> > especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with
> > secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication.
> >
> >
> > On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been
> assigned
> > > number 75. Also, the title has been changed to "Out of Band Address
> > > Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption" to be more accurate.
> > >
> > > We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some
> > > optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new
> > fields are:
> > > subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the
> > > requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the
> minimum
> > > fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee
> > (whether or
> > > not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with
> zeroconf). I
> > > know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with
> > > zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse
> RBF
> > > transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based
> on
> > > who you are transacting with).
> > >
> > > I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it
> > should be
> > > fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these
> > > fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please
> > take a
> > > look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any
> > concerns:
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails
> > >
> > > The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Justin W. Newton
> > Founder/CEO
> > Netki, Inc.
> >
> > justin at netki.com <mailto:justin at netki.com>
> > +1.818.261.4248 <tel:+1.818.261.4248>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160317/240febd4/attachment-0001.html>;