Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP 70 extension

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>]

Remember the IETF RFC process.

1) RFCs are never updated.  Extensions go into new RFCs.
2) Build an implementation, write a draft, circulate both.  Then get a
BIP number.
3) As MH indicated, it would be useful to have a living payment
protocol document that _is_ updated.
4) Let's stop calling it BIP70.  That just reinforces the desire to
update the BIP70 document.



On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@monetize.io> wrote:
> +1 on setting up the payment protocol extensions process more formally.
> On the feature itself, it is interesting to note that some
> complementary currencies backed by national currencies offer a
> discount when converting from fiat to complementary, which has an
> equivalent effect to this "discount for paying with btc". The main
> difference is that in local currencies the merchants are a relatively
> small group and the discount is uniform whereas here each merchant can
> set his own discount. There's scientific studies on how different
> currency features like these discounts affect adoption, velocity and
> other variables. I can ask for them if anyone is interested.
>
> On the implementation, I think a percentage/proportion would be
> preferable over an amount in satoshis.
> Let's imagine for a second that the bitcoin payment protocol ends up
> being a generalized and universal payment protocol. The field would be
> really something like "discount/additional_charge for paying with the
> chosen currency/payment_method".
> You could have 0.95 for a 5% discount or 1.05 for a 5% additional
> charge. Mhmm, maybe a flat discount/charge in addition to the
> proportional one...
>
> On security, being an optional field, I don't see how can it harm anything.
> It is true that the merchants can lie about the discount, but wallets
> can be smart or stupid about it, or just completely ignore the field
> as they wish.
>
> Anyway, it feels like a random simple extension as an excuse to
> develop the extension process. If it gets too complicated we can start
> with a simpler and less critical one but it's hard for me to imagine
> it.
>
>
> On 6/25/14, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree. It would be even sillier to start specifying container formats
>>> for random one-off "that would be kind of nice, I guess" features.
>>>
>>
>> No, it'd be sensible.
>>
>> Here's a list I drew up a long time ago of features I imagined adding to
>> the payment protocol:
>>
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270055.msg2890147#msg2890147
>>
>> The protocol is there to contain features! There is zero benefit to
>> slavishly following some religious notion of purity or minimalism here. The
>> shared resource in question is just varint encoded integers. So, we should
>> be guided by what will help our users and what will help adoption.
>>
>> Anyway, Gavin asked me to start handling more BIP 70 stuff a few weeks ago.
>> I want to use something simple to set up the extensions process more
>> formally. IMO we need a "living document" version of the payment protocol
>> with all the different extensions out there folded into it, to simplify
>> programming tasks and ensure field numbers don't collide.
>>
>
>
> --
> Jorge Timón
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
> Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
> Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
> Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/