Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] Reusable payment codes

[Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>]

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:58:58 PM Justus Ranvier wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this statement.

Well, I strongly disagree with adopting the BIP as it stands.

> Version 1 payment codes are designed to be deployable by wallet
> implementers today, without requiring them to wait on any network-level
> changes whatsoever, which includes IsStandard() redefinitions, or
> yet-to-be-invented-and-deployed filtering schemes.

No, those are not network-level changes. They are mere software changes that 
can be deployed along with the rest of the proposal.

> As far as I know, multi-push OP_RETURN outputs are not standard
> transactions and so wallet users can not rely on transactions containing
> them to be relayed through the network, therefore any improvement to the
> protocol which requires that feature is not appropriate for version 1.

"Standard" means defined in a BIP. To date, there are no standard 
transactions using OP_RETURN period. IsStandard is a node policy that should 
have no influence on future BIPs.

> When additional capabilities are deployed in the network such that
> Bitcoin users can rely on their existence, that would be a great time to
> specify a version 2 payment code that uses those features and encourage
> users to upgrade (which should be a fairly smooth process since their
> actual keys don't need to change).

Such changes should not be made until there is a standard for them.

Luke