James MacWhyte [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-03-11 📝 Original message:That's a valid point, and ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-03-11
📝 Original message:That's a valid point, and one we had thought of, which is why I wanted to
get everyone's opinion. I agree the proposed field extensions have nothing
to do with encryption, but does it make sense to propose a completely
separate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the accepted way to go, we
can split it into two and make a separate proposal.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <
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
> > 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/20160311/12e2977c/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:That's a valid point, and one we had thought of, which is why I wanted to
get everyone's opinion. I agree the proposed field extensions have nothing
to do with encryption, but does it make sense to propose a completely
separate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the accepted way to go, we
can split it into two and make a separate proposal.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <
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
> > 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/20160311/12e2977c/attachment.html>;