📅 Original date posted:2016-03-12
📝 Original message:Yes, it makes sense. A BIP is something people refer to, either just by
its number or by URL, and with multiple orthogonal "sub-BIPs" it's
difficult to refer to. We have this problem with BIP32 already -- all HD
wallets implement the derivation part of BIP32 but almost none do
implement the hierarchy part (and use BIP43/44 instead). I tried to
split up BIP32 into two BIPs later (without any content changes), but it
was declined because of its final state.
There is no harm in using a BIP only for a small thing, BIP numbers are
infinite.
On 03/11/2016 08:32 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xg…adsv7
2023-06-07 17:49:51
in reply to nevent1q…gme0
Author Public Key
npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7Published at
2023-06-07 17:49:51Event JSON
{
"id": "ef910260a0c9c10e925ac7acd438e1566cdf50704234edbd8d017bc07d002b61",
"pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc",
"created_at": 1686160191,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d162123e913c99417014774eaac602746d432edef71d022963d4efa0d0cd2223",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"48f8fd648332ccb92122cff0b8845c8c00d396c25ed616f3e6a8b78ab4c96451",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"52e5d0646af3ea5ccb6c4bd31237d6068258a11ace3ac40f02466a3f89342928"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-12\n📝 Original message:Yes, it makes sense. A BIP is something people refer to, either just by\nits number or by URL, and with multiple orthogonal \"sub-BIPs\" it's\ndifficult to refer to. We have this problem with BIP32 already -- all HD\nwallets implement the derivation part of BIP32 but almost none do\nimplement the hierarchy part (and use BIP43/44 instead). I tried to\nsplit up BIP32 into two BIPs later (without any content changes), but it\nwas declined because of its final state.\n\nThere is no harm in using a BIP only for a small thing, BIP numbers are\ninfinite.\n\n\nOn 03/11/2016 08:32 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e That's a valid point, and one we had thought of, which is why I wanted\n\u003e to get everyone's opinion. I agree the proposed field extensions have\n\u003e nothing to do with encryption, but does it make sense to propose a\n\u003e completely separate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the accepted\n\u003e way to go, we can split it into two and make a separate proposal.\n\u003e \n\u003e On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with\n\u003e other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs,\n\u003e especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with\n\u003e secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Hi everyone,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been assigned\n\u003e \u003e number 75. Also, the title has been changed to \"Out of Band Address\n\u003e \u003e Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption\" to be more accurate.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some\n\u003e \u003e optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new\n\u003e fields are:\n\u003e \u003e subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the\n\u003e \u003e requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the minimum\n\u003e \u003e fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee\n\u003e (whether or\n\u003e \u003e not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with zeroconf). I\n\u003e \u003e know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with\n\u003e \u003e zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse RBF\n\u003e \u003e transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based on\n\u003e \u003e who you are transacting with).\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it\n\u003e should be\n\u003e \u003e fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these\n\u003e \u003e fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please\n\u003e take a\n\u003e \u003e look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any\n\u003e concerns:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Thanks!\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e James\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 \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\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 \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\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",
"sig": "f65aaa37e483b54ecf37b670d01f7b635cb0c53c5e6bd478aa17a2cad4588ad23141a21f1b384d177b5693f6e99751c2e77a32670e0e7d4e3d7d04973e8f0562"
}