From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RsGCn-0000Wu-1r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:05:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.246.101.161; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RsGCh-0004RR-AI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:05:12 +0000 Received: from [152.23.43.212] (MainCampusMid00971.1Xwireless.unc.edu [152.23.43.212]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74F053F8 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:56:21 +0100 (CET) From: Matt Corallo To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <1328020046.70720.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1328020046.70720.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:04:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1328025899.2832.5.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RsGCh-0004RR-AI Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 20 Rejected, process for BIP 21N X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:05:13 -0000 On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 06:27 -0800, Amir Taaki wrote: > BIP 20 really has no support among implementations such as Bitcoin-Qt, Electrum, MultiBit or Bitcoin-JS. As the most active and visible user facing GUI projects (all with some form of URI Scheme), their opinion carries the most weight. To a lesser degree Bitcoin-Qt has the large majority of users too (although that's a line of reasoning I'd discourage). > > Normally we should probably Reject BIP 21 and re-submit a new standard (for history's sake), but as a) BIP 21 is largely a copy paste of BIP 20 sans some sections b) it is still a draft, probably the best thing here is if you all agree on something to run it by BlueMatt and then we'll make it the new BIP 21. > > I can see a consensus forming on most parts. Just the send private key is contentious, and there's the topic of adding a time to expire field for merchants (this is a very good idea IMO). > > Also BIP 20 is problematic because it is incompatible with about every standard on the web. All the HTML, URI and everything uses decimal numbers alone. I see no reason for breaking with tradition. Note that everytime I have to write Color or Vectorize (as a British speaker) in my code, I die a little inside. But it's convention and American English = International English. Also it would be cool if all code used a *real* international language (like Esperanto) but the world ain't perfect! We live in a decimal-counting English-speaking Windows-using God-worshipping world! > > (no offense to decimal-counting English-speaking Windows-using God-worshipping world- I do half those things too :) The send crap was not in the original spec, is not implemented anywhere, and should have been removed as part of the BIP 21 copy/paste. It is now gone. As for the expire time, well thats a bit problematic IMHO. Technically BIP 21 is still a draft, but it is implemented in all versions of Bitcoin-Qt for drag and drop and adding a field which restricts the validity of a URI for new clients, but which old clients will gladly accept could result in some ugly situations IMO. Matt