📅 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>;
James MacWhyte [ARCHIVE] /
npub12t…pye9h
2023-06-07 17:49:51
in reply to nevent1q…jkvu
Author Public Key
npub12tjaqer27049ejmvf0f3yd7kq6p93gg6ecavgrczge4rlzf59y5q2pye9hPublished at
2023-06-07 17:49:51Event JSON
{
"id": "48f8fd648332ccb92122cff0b8845c8c00d396c25ed616f3e6a8b78ab4c96451",
"pubkey": "52e5d0646af3ea5ccb6c4bd31237d6068258a11ace3ac40f02466a3f89342928",
"created_at": 1686160191,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d162123e913c99417014774eaac602746d432edef71d022963d4efa0d0cd2223",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"615f362bbb9093d2347577376abd1c22ec03c91a0e14a59d165b8b0c5ff57505",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-11\n📝 Original message:That's a valid point, and one we had thought of, which is why I wanted to\nget everyone's opinion. I agree the proposed field extensions have nothing\nto do with encryption, but does it make sense to propose a completely\nseparate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the accepted way to go, we\ncan split it into two and make a separate proposal.\n\nOn Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\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 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 (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 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 take a\n\u003e \u003e look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any 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 \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/20160311/12e2977c/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "afdb4210e952d11e293ecbab9b7e7e1f7c04c1fbddc76af951f246786af7e20aa1132774c386340c09838f4f8b860d606466d5cf66b10418516252623355a969"
}