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 2A45AB5D for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:23:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com (mail-oi0-f53.google.com [209.85.218.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277C319E for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:23:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id m82so52402613oif.1 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:23:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YdCDsYHl4fLFDr8OLrlj8vUUxqGLaS90ym4gwKuKzpI=; b=oNZ4FE/M3noz+mMCbAaoDWC5lj3IuLGkUoIq/91dT/0kKJ0mD2M3PE8OxPl316mU7c otKPjLDXr7lMi83wGcNA99dD9xagf3Jibfj/8QJLH846BLk/cCoLTOiY3roVFy9jrcpj ShqmPkXS5Mit4nJ34UrEaUq285rRu4YQFzplAGuD30PX5oBuAaGo6RkTlphUa+Xlj4Pb BJa690OYFIfTo4ziZBTtPy8LuokBvo+t6LfFN3a5EsN6z2wLg5G+kCXq0mlX3KVRh/Zf eC7CkZpQ4Y9Dmvv3YMZBs1+Fe6PjvS60eBRAeq7HFBH91hDvS03v1/cE7Cwlbxvf9zbQ jTpQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=YdCDsYHl4fLFDr8OLrlj8vUUxqGLaS90ym4gwKuKzpI=; b=OEvwubEJ8ELmicV2cUQaeesFx5KYUUOG0UiT25Ud6T6BZk93j+6fvF81Lwl9t3I1hw jckRo0KeJw7yLGKcIKj1dh8eVCgZFZGj/Euj3AbB/XjNEp/bsCpdWrWI/hIQ6wjsiu6T pjCtMJbFT9iZe2709t7ov/YN1iqUFM5+7skiUiBwxqSJu2OKPxHSLre5RX1jQPpetR9C xHkYWFxYgwQ0I76RwhxhjupN2FFqMp3qD25zSdX6lV+CKDkEhvbM3ffkcckc7HumluEM wJGakgoqGn5yuYXSoqXnE8fGqBugUqrE03caOlM9JjSR2vCJkefM8BsEh6SSc5jwNG97 zCPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIy9IMBxI/ZpfngLzfq91UyO0BhX6M3eFVAY/SP1b1WRT+9kd6p8m80qf38DcX2UqzYGnk6EB905NjFFA== X-Received: by 10.202.90.3 with SMTP id o3mr4376354oib.96.1458177799343; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:23:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: James MacWhyte Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:23:09 +0000 Message-ID: To: Andreas Schildbach , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d5edcbff874052e34793a X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:23:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP75 - Out of Band Address Exchange X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:23:21 -0000 --001a113d5edcbff874052e34793a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have removed the BIP70 field extensions from this BIP and will save that for another time. A PR to add our documentation to the main repo has been submitted. James On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Replying to the "fee" part of BIP75 (which as already noted should go to > a different BIP number imho): > > It makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee > doesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. In > extreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be > unspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a > high enough rate... > > Rather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover > should be declared. > > Also, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted > from the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which > understands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only. > The wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can > send the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee > amount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it > would display just the exceeding amount. > > > > > On 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separate > > BIP. What do others think? I=E2=80=99d prefer to keep them together i= f the > > changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP=E2=80=99s, bu= t thats > > not a strong preference. > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev > > > > wrote: > > > > I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP wi= th > > 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 Addre= ss > > > 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 th= e > > > 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 refus= e > RBF > > > transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting base= d > 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 thes= e > > > 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#Extendi= ng_BIP70_PaymentDetails > > > > > > The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Justin W. Newton > > Founder/CEO > > Netki, Inc. > > > > justin@netki.com > > +1.818.261.4248 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113d5edcbff874052e34793a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We have removed the BIP70 field extensions from this BIP a= nd will save that for another time. A PR to add our documentation to the ma= in repo has been submitted.

James

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM Andrea= s Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Replying to the "fee" part of BI= P75 (which as already noted should go to
a different BIP number imho):

It makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee
doesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. I= n
extreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be unspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a high enough rate...

Rather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover
should be declared.

Also, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted from the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which
understands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only.
The wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can
send the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee
amount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it
would display just the exceeding amount.




On 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separat= e
> BIP.=C2=A0 What do others think?=C2=A0 I=E2=80=99d prefer to keep them= together if the
> changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP=E2=80=99s, b= ut thats
> not a strong preference.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original= idea of this BIP with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0other extensions. Other extensions should go to sep= arate BIPs,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0especially since methods to clarify the fee have no= thing to do with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 commu= nication.
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-= dev wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Hi everyone,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has t= entatively been assigned
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> number 75. Also, the title has been changed to= "Out of Band Address
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption&quo= t; to be more accurate.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> We thought it would be good to take this oppor= tunity to add some
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails me= ssage. The new
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fields are:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> subtractable fee (give permission to the sende= r to use some of the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> requested amount towards the transaction fee),= fee per kb (the minimum
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and = replace by fee
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(whether or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> not a transaction with the RBF flag will be ac= cepted with zeroconf). I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> know it doesn't make much sense for mercha= nts to accept RBF with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> zeroconf, so that last one might be used more = to explicitly refuse RBF
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> transactions (and allow the automation of choo= sing a setting based on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> who you are transacting with).
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP7= 0, so I think it
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0should be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> fine to include these extensions in the new BI= P, even though these
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> fields are not specific to the features we are= proposing. Please
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0take a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> look at the relevant section and let me know i= f anyone has any
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0concerns:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075= .mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also= been updated.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Thanks!
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> James
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> ______________________________________________= _
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> https://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0_______________________________________________
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcoin-dev mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://lists.= linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Justin W. Newton
> Founder/CEO
> Netki, Inc.
>
> justin@netki.com= <mailto:justi= n@netki.com>
> +1.818.261.4248 <tel:+1.818.261.4248>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a113d5edcbff874052e34793a--