📅 Original date posted:2017-12-05
📝 Original message:Perhaps instead of a flag that can be used to disable a specific operation,
there should be a "-ignoredflags=x,y,z" section of the URI that can be used
to ignore whatever BIP this might also be useful for in the future?
On Dec 5, 2017 11:34 AM, "Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> One way to reduce fees is to encourage usage of Replace-By-Fee, BIP 125
> [0]. It allows wallets to recommend lower fees, because if a transaction
> gets stuck due to underestimation, the fee can easily be bumped.
>
> Bitcoin Core has had support for RBF for a while, and as of v0.15.0
> recommends lower fees [1] when the user chooses to use RBF.
>
> I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default,
> which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for merchants
> who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested
> that wallets honor a no125=1 flag.
>
> So a BIP-21 URI would look like this: bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=20.
> 3&no125=1
>
> When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their
> default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference.
>
> Afaik adding this flag won't break existing BIP-21 support. It doesn't use
> the req- prefix, because it's optional. I'm also not aware of any ad hoc
> standards that use no125 in BIP-21-ish URIs.
>
> - Sjors
>
> P.S. I'd similarly suggest adding a bech32 param, but that's for another
> discussion
>
> [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki
> [1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/09/01/release-0.15.0/#
> better-fee-estimates
> [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11605
> [3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11828
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171205/923ac704/attachment-0001.html>;
CryptAxe [ARCHIVE] /
npub12p…js309
2023-06-07 18:08:22
in reply to nevent1q…xzlp
Author Public Key
npub12p7jzesdg8kxdg8rujr20znnd868fgugczkwh4cyxwa6gnxj5sxsnjs309Published at
2023-06-07 18:08:22Event JSON
{
"id": "2f0bc1d4587bf95a5494bfc35133d9451814e21422db03f61591cb1be015a9d7",
"pubkey": "507d21660d41ec66a0e3e486a78a7369f474a388c0acebd70433bba44cd2a40d",
"created_at": 1686161302,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"927a6dd1724c8700c1a4ae5c603baecdc05f61d5c01cc7f05dc3b724033ff24a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5b255954ee3cd89feefb5d186369baf0d4557fe8dac56400737fb44273d237aa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5aec03abfeba7e49687161b8e2e0a1e7b197a77db10a7347ae147000dbcba7df"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-12-05\n📝 Original message:Perhaps instead of a flag that can be used to disable a specific operation,\nthere should be a \"-ignoredflags=x,y,z\" section of the URI that can be used\nto ignore whatever BIP this might also be useful for in the future?\n\nOn Dec 5, 2017 11:34 AM, \"Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e One way to reduce fees is to encourage usage of Replace-By-Fee, BIP 125\n\u003e [0]. It allows wallets to recommend lower fees, because if a transaction\n\u003e gets stuck due to underestimation, the fee can easily be bumped.\n\u003e\n\u003e Bitcoin Core has had support for RBF for a while, and as of v0.15.0\n\u003e recommends lower fees [1] when the user chooses to use RBF.\n\u003e\n\u003e I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default,\n\u003e which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for merchants\n\u003e who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested\n\u003e that wallets honor a no125=1 flag.\n\u003e\n\u003e So a BIP-21 URI would look like this: bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=20.\n\u003e 3\u0026no125=1\n\u003e\n\u003e When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their\n\u003e default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference.\n\u003e\n\u003e Afaik adding this flag won't break existing BIP-21 support. It doesn't use\n\u003e the req- prefix, because it's optional. I'm also not aware of any ad hoc\n\u003e standards that use no125 in BIP-21-ish URIs.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Sjors\n\u003e\n\u003e P.S. I'd similarly suggest adding a bech32 param, but that's for another\n\u003e discussion\n\u003e\n\u003e [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki\n\u003e [1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/09/01/release-0.15.0/#\n\u003e better-fee-estimates\n\u003e [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11605\n\u003e [3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11828\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\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171205/923ac704/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "3e5c48e0a9e555d842a3ca1ed72cdc6f47afcb28b319e5cc6d1254fa2a9f4a9a737e564eafd4e10cde6d09bdf3929c3b3dc4feeba68a1a7841c07bad9c1843e2"
}