📅 Original date posted:2017-12-05
📝 Original message:On Dec 5, 2017 12:00 PM, "Sjors Provoost" <sjors at sprovoost.nl> wrote:
...
I don't think all BIPs lend themselves to this pattern. Can you think of
another example?
Not right now, just seemed like a good idea to consider making it useful
for more than one thing (maybe CT or something else could use it in the
future?).
I also suspect each ignored flag requires carefully defined behavior, so
it's probably better to spell that out in the BIP.
Sjors
Agreed, no reason they couldn't reuse the same section of the payment
request URI though. (And define that behavior in the BIP)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171205/f2230fff/attachment.html>;
CryptAxe [ARCHIVE] /
npub12p…js309
2023-06-07 18:08:21
in reply to nevent1q…zyap
Author Public Key
npub12p7jzesdg8kxdg8rujr20znnd868fgugczkwh4cyxwa6gnxj5sxsnjs309Published at
2023-06-07 18:08:21Event JSON
{
"id": "1ece9b182554d1045d3e4d3ce241a896ea332e842950a3afcb75c72a9355a71f",
"pubkey": "507d21660d41ec66a0e3e486a78a7369f474a388c0acebd70433bba44cd2a40d",
"created_at": 1686161301,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"927a6dd1724c8700c1a4ae5c603baecdc05f61d5c01cc7f05dc3b724033ff24a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d43cf9cc15c47ad252a32ed3b69729000fde2148daae0b53cfc8e7f7e3da664a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e1ad0d0d83103f222425541294008149d215c1e1629b0bb37b98e19f698feb3e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-12-05\n📝 Original message:On Dec 5, 2017 12:00 PM, \"Sjors Provoost\" \u003csjors at sprovoost.nl\u003e wrote:\n\n...\n\nI don't think all BIPs lend themselves to this pattern. Can you think of\nanother example?\n\n\nNot right now, just seemed like a good idea to consider making it useful\nfor more than one thing (maybe CT or something else could use it in the\nfuture?).\n\nI also suspect each ignored flag requires carefully defined behavior, so\nit's probably better to spell that out in the BIP.\n\nSjors\n\n\nAgreed, no reason they couldn't reuse the same section of the payment\nrequest URI though. (And define that behavior in the BIP)\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171205/f2230fff/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "9cd65eeed57e37e97df4ee8a51ba60d33e6a7b747dee28e9cb2ff5e2da2f76d51f6f0b891b2b4cdbe5bedf7550fef16b538e313c6d7c937379e0709cbb180c1f"
}