📅 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>;
James MacWhyte [ARCHIVE] /
npub12t…pye9h
2023-06-07 17:49:52
in reply to nevent1q…q7d4
Author Public Key
npub12tjaqer27049ejmvf0f3yd7kq6p93gg6ecavgrczge4rlzf59y5q2pye9hPublished at
2023-06-07 17:49:52Event JSON
{
"id": "50e4af83c2e13aa55063874c2e82121287e5e85093c732ea95dfc8bbd5c1aed5",
"pubkey": "52e5d0646af3ea5ccb6c4bd31237d6068258a11ace3ac40f02466a3f89342928",
"created_at": 1686160192,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d162123e913c99417014774eaac602746d432edef71d022963d4efa0d0cd2223",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d80cb4f69147202b9abab099275a8048e136680ea3ecc30f316cdd52ab170db2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-16\n📝 Original message:We have removed the BIP70 field extensions from this BIP and will save that\nfor another time. A PR to add our documentation to the main repo has been\nsubmitted.\n\nJames\n\nOn Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Replying to the \"fee\" part of BIP75 (which as already noted should go to\n\u003e a different BIP number imho):\n\u003e\n\u003e It makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee\n\u003e doesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. In\n\u003e extreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be\n\u003e unspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a\n\u003e high enough rate...\n\u003e\n\u003e Rather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover\n\u003e should be declared.\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted\n\u003e from the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which\n\u003e understands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only.\n\u003e The wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can\n\u003e send the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee\n\u003e amount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it\n\u003e would display just the exceeding amount.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separate\n\u003e \u003e BIP. What do others think? I’d prefer to keep them together if the\n\u003e \u003e changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP’s, but thats\n\u003e \u003e not a strong preference.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with\n\u003e \u003e other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs,\n\u003e \u003e especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with\n\u003e \u003e secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Hi everyone,\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been\n\u003e assigned\n\u003e \u003e \u003e number 75. Also, the title has been changed to \"Out of Band Address\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption\" to be more accurate.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some\n\u003e \u003e \u003e optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new\n\u003e \u003e fields are:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the\n\u003e minimum\n\u003e \u003e \u003e fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee\n\u003e \u003e (whether or\n\u003e \u003e \u003e not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with\n\u003e zeroconf). I\n\u003e \u003e \u003e know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with\n\u003e \u003e \u003e zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse\n\u003e RBF\n\u003e \u003e \u003e transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based\n\u003e on\n\u003e \u003e \u003e who you are transacting with).\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it\n\u003e \u003e should be\n\u003e \u003e \u003e fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these\n\u003e \u003e \u003e fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please\n\u003e \u003e take a\n\u003e \u003e \u003e look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any\n\u003e \u003e concerns:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Thanks!\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e James\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e --\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Justin W. Newton\n\u003e \u003e Founder/CEO\n\u003e \u003e Netki, Inc.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e justin at netki.com \u003cmailto:justin at netki.com\u003e\n\u003e \u003e +1.818.261.4248 \u003ctel:+1.818.261.4248\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160317/240febd4/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "2c5c5e013a5558ddf88b3b48a13dbd99501a57cc15f4466c616ba2b40d2179d99b6269055845f048df061344dcd6040b33e677143a9fc3c52edac405bc0d5e3a"
}