Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-01-31 📝 Original message:To ensure forward ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-01-31
📝 Original message:To ensure forward compatibility with optional fields, we need to define how
a client handles fields that it doesn't know about.
When should it display an error message, and when should it silently accept
and ignore the extraneous fields?
(For example, if something that restricts the validity, such as "expires"
is added later on, it is pretty important not to ignore it. Older clients
should refuse to comply.)
URL signing should indeed be addressed in a separate BIP and be an
extension mechanism, IMO.
"expires" and "message" could go into BIP 21 one as they're easy to
implement and don't need much discussion.
Wladimir
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Gary Rowe <g.rowe at froot.co.uk> wrote:
> I think that the "send to private address" field will require more effort
> to implement than the simpler "expires" and "message" fields and should be
> deferred to a later BIP. There is a pressing need for expires and the only
> point of contention I see is the inclusion of a dual representation (block
> or timestamp).
>
> Personally, I feel that simple is best and while a block number represents
> Bitcoin's pulse, there is no guarantee that a block will be discovered at
> any particular moment. From a merchant perspective the main point of the
> expires field is to limit risk against currency movement (immediate cash
> out) or inventory movement (time limited offer). I have difficulty seeing a
> good use case that would need a block. People have been co-ordinating
> events based on a UTC timestamp for decades and I think we should stick
> with it.
>
> Regarding the "version" field I again think it adds unnecessary
> complexity. Pretty much everything that is needed within the Bitcoin URI
> scheme can be encoded with suitable optional fields (as query params)
> making the whole structure forward compatible. Having a version field seems
> redundant.
>
> Finally, the URI signing mechanism. Apologies for the earlier
> misunderstanding, I was reading from a limited description and it didn't
> make the purpose clear. I've since used
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58534.msg689190#msg689190 as my
> reference which is a lot clearer. I think it's a good idea, and I'll
> definitely support it in my MulitBit Merchant project, but it currently
> seems to need more work so I think should be deferred into a dedicated BIP.
>
> On 31 January 2012 08:35, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I also wonder whether the "send to private address" should be part of
>> this BIP, or a future one.
>>
>> IMO (but your mileage may vary) this BIP should only define the
>> bare-bones URL scheme, AND provide room for future extensions such
>> as send-to-private-address, send-multiple-signers, and so on. These should
>> be forwards-compatible (as Luke-Jr says) in the sense that older clients
>> can detect schemes they don't understand and give the user an appropriate
>> error message.
>>
>> Maybe we need a send-type parameter to define the scheme?
>>
>> Good point on the version parameter. How are clients supposed to handle
>> this? Refuse to handle the request if their URL scheme parser version is
>> older than in the URL? This should be in the BIP.
>>
>> Wladimir
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Schildbach <
>> andreas at schildbach.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Generally I prefer BIP 21 over BIP 20.
>>>
>>> I'm neutral on the 'send' parameter - present in both BIPs - which I
>>> don't understand. I think a practical usecase should be given in the BIP.
>>>
>>> Also, the 'version' parameter is unclear. What does it mean? Is an oder
>>> defined on versions (1.0b > 1.0)? Why is it an ";" parameter rather than
>>> a normal "&" parameter?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2012 12:55 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>>> > Matt Corallo posted a modification of BIP 20 in an earlier email and I
>>> > asked him if he wanted to become the champion of that BIP he submitted.
>>> >
>>> > It is a modification of BIP 20 sans the alternative non-decimal number
>>> > stuff.
>>> >
>>> > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
>>> >
>>> > Right now, I will ask the GUI client implementations like MultiBit or
>>> > Bitcoin-Qt, not different codebases like BitCoinJ or libbitcoin if they
>>> > support BIP 20 or BIP 21. Feel free to raise any objections.
>>> >
>>> > More weight will be given to GUIs with actual URI sche me
>>> > implementations and it's good to have a general consensus.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
>>> > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>>> > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3,
>>> MVC3,
>>> > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
>>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
>>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120131/6c6c8e64/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:To ensure forward compatibility with optional fields, we need to define how
a client handles fields that it doesn't know about.
When should it display an error message, and when should it silently accept
and ignore the extraneous fields?
(For example, if something that restricts the validity, such as "expires"
is added later on, it is pretty important not to ignore it. Older clients
should refuse to comply.)
URL signing should indeed be addressed in a separate BIP and be an
extension mechanism, IMO.
"expires" and "message" could go into BIP 21 one as they're easy to
implement and don't need much discussion.
Wladimir
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Gary Rowe <g.rowe at froot.co.uk> wrote:
> I think that the "send to private address" field will require more effort
> to implement than the simpler "expires" and "message" fields and should be
> deferred to a later BIP. There is a pressing need for expires and the only
> point of contention I see is the inclusion of a dual representation (block
> or timestamp).
>
> Personally, I feel that simple is best and while a block number represents
> Bitcoin's pulse, there is no guarantee that a block will be discovered at
> any particular moment. From a merchant perspective the main point of the
> expires field is to limit risk against currency movement (immediate cash
> out) or inventory movement (time limited offer). I have difficulty seeing a
> good use case that would need a block. People have been co-ordinating
> events based on a UTC timestamp for decades and I think we should stick
> with it.
>
> Regarding the "version" field I again think it adds unnecessary
> complexity. Pretty much everything that is needed within the Bitcoin URI
> scheme can be encoded with suitable optional fields (as query params)
> making the whole structure forward compatible. Having a version field seems
> redundant.
>
> Finally, the URI signing mechanism. Apologies for the earlier
> misunderstanding, I was reading from a limited description and it didn't
> make the purpose clear. I've since used
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58534.msg689190#msg689190 as my
> reference which is a lot clearer. I think it's a good idea, and I'll
> definitely support it in my MulitBit Merchant project, but it currently
> seems to need more work so I think should be deferred into a dedicated BIP.
>
> On 31 January 2012 08:35, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I also wonder whether the "send to private address" should be part of
>> this BIP, or a future one.
>>
>> IMO (but your mileage may vary) this BIP should only define the
>> bare-bones URL scheme, AND provide room for future extensions such
>> as send-to-private-address, send-multiple-signers, and so on. These should
>> be forwards-compatible (as Luke-Jr says) in the sense that older clients
>> can detect schemes they don't understand and give the user an appropriate
>> error message.
>>
>> Maybe we need a send-type parameter to define the scheme?
>>
>> Good point on the version parameter. How are clients supposed to handle
>> this? Refuse to handle the request if their URL scheme parser version is
>> older than in the URL? This should be in the BIP.
>>
>> Wladimir
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Schildbach <
>> andreas at schildbach.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Generally I prefer BIP 21 over BIP 20.
>>>
>>> I'm neutral on the 'send' parameter - present in both BIPs - which I
>>> don't understand. I think a practical usecase should be given in the BIP.
>>>
>>> Also, the 'version' parameter is unclear. What does it mean? Is an oder
>>> defined on versions (1.0b > 1.0)? Why is it an ";" parameter rather than
>>> a normal "&" parameter?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2012 12:55 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>>> > Matt Corallo posted a modification of BIP 20 in an earlier email and I
>>> > asked him if he wanted to become the champion of that BIP he submitted.
>>> >
>>> > It is a modification of BIP 20 sans the alternative non-decimal number
>>> > stuff.
>>> >
>>> > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
>>> >
>>> > Right now, I will ask the GUI client implementations like MultiBit or
>>> > Bitcoin-Qt, not different codebases like BitCoinJ or libbitcoin if they
>>> > support BIP 20 or BIP 21. Feel free to raise any objections.
>>> >
>>> > More weight will be given to GUIs with actual URI sche me
>>> > implementations and it's good to have a general consensus.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
>>> > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>>> > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3,
>>> MVC3,
>>> > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
>>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
>>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120131/6c6c8e64/attachment.html>;