From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5908FC9D for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:40:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f175.google.com (mail-wr0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6939E411 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x49so1513383wrb.13 for ; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:40:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g9aBezQzXKn9ARRPls96oq4xGxM1g6B4amGmVp+3W0o=; b=RI8nMskXBTh0o8Vp/EbxMuBgOD7tIERaST72rTvrJUwE3JZJ6piRfDBLKgIfgsbjL4 cE2u44ciWXTjMfdKBzNAtzYfoZHr0bqTebbL5Cyx9VXaJhs9oZoAF81TbuZN5awEuYj6 GqvIMEQWwrAEmOzZ/cZbZA16XkI9zPp1dfSfmhfUdxmKnN2ClFe2jeVnBgGhqUA9ZxLP ASWN3EaAB/2F0HlSPpTi0TRFwnPH1l6IDTT2cL/wg0rDlLKeG4ShmP8IFsykheto24J2 bRQccsLOJdNBgimYGwnkXpqR2fPnGZbARZkie32nBE5v3zPNAzhmfCKCHMYvqW1rmmSR SRyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g9aBezQzXKn9ARRPls96oq4xGxM1g6B4amGmVp+3W0o=; b=GlEDzQdSnYtuLjPAshUFsBoYuKHBnNCq/8HYPtGj3+4bItA9CLprM8l9KVQacMFD5Y R4aiZicboQPlo7lTpR0AgUYm2lXdBP6vsNGV4F0bvXBBTlZK3YWVyOIP45rUjf9oz+Pb //soEa/w7fNksv+OaXe6otMvQ26aVlnT81XyR9TV7WMR5fMWhKO9tIePk5BtSjtNCBP9 sPcrCu3d1z9Lz9/8SC0hLso6aiRAUysWTyYIxIcs2kvh3TowJgoTPZVrThyD1jrGtj2K WTDEXZPI8JqvYsnLsxtAoFvnnG7oeBQf7OnCE6Mc9U0nkUkTGHvf96l2jvu9nqKVg3Ll rxEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7sPBgSS6NFRlWbDxwoFw4sVvjm9nCLm2ECSZdmrvGJps6jHjCS wpbXA2mr0qzHYZUcoUoOmMTWWgsVUV+NTfBDRX0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbrB4Sk8BG9FMi0SO2C7GiqjlJBNkVyNmkC0rY671MRe2cTa6dQdtC5dJ82OY85x9IVvfR7NwACEehMcjen7lQ= X-Received: by 10.223.151.136 with SMTP id s8mr18270799wrb.94.1512502842996; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:40:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.146.69 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:40:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.146.69 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:40:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: CryptAxe Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:40:42 -0800 Message-ID: To: Sjors Provoost , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1b4f1eadbf43055f9d02d9" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 20:05:14 +0000 Cc: Matt Corallo Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-21 amendment proposal: -no125 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:40:45 -0000 --94eb2c1b4f1eadbf43055f9d02d9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --94eb2c1b4f1eadbf43055f9d02d9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Perhaps instead of= a flag that can be used to disable a specific operation, there should be a= "-ignoredflags=3Dx,y,z" section of the URI that can be used to i= gnore whatever BIP this might also be useful for in the future?=C2=A0

On Dec 5, = 2017 11:34 AM, "Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= on.org> wrote:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bi= ps/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki
[1] https://bitcoincore.or= g/en/2017/09/01/release-0.15.0/#better-fee-estimates
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11605<= /a>
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11= 828

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c1b4f1eadbf43055f9d02d9--