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 3EA0EBDB for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:00:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5F2A411 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA8C722D75; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:00:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sprovoost.nl; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=/tweC7ySzWSDU2eWCCKsAgiXiEmsTkFng8W1iy76BR4=; b=Mg/uvwNH vFGBSj9fSNSJU+A40PhsU+PKd7Rrsm/wILBt2xQ+xTbr2+bB9La+Lq0Z+JN4AIyz CLu/8SEFjEGHw29zgsAtQzEVw1ZsczjQk8b2n6Jly0zFKeO2vG6j/zEgIWD993Mr LAivPHhmigHAMjGWj3JQlPKwkIeIgkSzotMw2qbW3URn0mf+EQLj2bSMErBqJGiW fASeSAIqhxaK59DbwTA+xw2O0ywKJRTMaBa364eKvkoQ+OWGYlsVZnY5p74jGU1G hh6dQjEMn485n0tzs3sXGsaqcPHtSwR8/x3zA6nrHlJupE6qe6j1d8Fu3sjk63vU eb5NuMZFX6VLVg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=/tweC7ySzWSDU2eWCCKsAgiXiEmsT kFng8W1iy76BR4=; b=nSz1viPPC2S8+2Idtzg1byJIrs7C9C0aBctbILeSr9qtX dhz1IF220Cg4zsRz8DQGo5u1atUf1pUQoLHPnAXn8xoPN0IHO2HNXVwivMeIA++4 pNFuz2S2AqLbfXhMp+N46VzOGnNRzWC9ZlTUbCZ2oSc4quiu+NSui8f7X1R1B8Xf rqEABnJtisbOJ1YUcPY9D4cqqnpqU+hOEbj9EHY7AxKYxWgSzO1AygD8d7MQjegi p8Op1LtdkDPolzm61wRwmAykXQ7YAfq+wESBdK1roPZCVJzBgcQM0w5aZmmYUS+L 73qwGZfkGiN33SK4/2OcTmqgHiCS9wXewvfxd67Og== X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.178.108] (54693d0f.cm-12-2a.dynamic.ziggo.nl [84.105.61.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B4BEC7E26F; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:00:05 -0500 (EST) From: Sjors Provoost Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DE7BD198-A6D9-4704-BB2A-328B2E8D5A34"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\)) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:00:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <201712051939.33238.luke@dashjr.org> To: Bitcoin Dev , CryptAxe , Luke Dashjr References: <201712051939.33238.luke@dashjr.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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: 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 20:00:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DE7BD198-A6D9-4704-BB2A-328B2E8D5A34 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CryptAxe wrote: > 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 ignore whatever BIP this might also be useful for in = the future? I don't think all BIPs lend themselves to this pattern. Can you think of = another example? I also suspect each ignored flag requires carefully = defined behavior, so it's probably better to spell that out in the BIP. I also wouldn't be surprised if this BIP will get superseded in its = entirety in the not too distant future; I believe there's some earlier = discussion on this list about variations on BIP-71. So I don't think = there will be many additional params in the future that warrant = abstraction. Luke Dashjr wrote: >> P.S. I'd similarly suggest adding a bech32 param, but that's for = another >> discussion >=20 > Bech32 addresses are just normal addresses. What need is there for a = param? >=20 > Luke Most wallets consider bech32 addresses to be invalid. This would allow = merchants to display a backwards compatible P2SH address and allow = modern wallets to use bech32. In fact, this should be encouraged because = it's slightly cheaper for the recipient to spend these funds (but not = worth even a tiny increase in shopping cart abandonment). Once the new format has sufficient adoption, merchants can simply drop = support for old wallets and not use this parameter. Sjors --Apple-Mail=_DE7BD198-A6D9-4704-BB2A-328B2E8D5A34 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE7ZvfetalXiMuhFJCV/+b28wwEAkFAlom+sEACgkQV/+b28ww EAlEuw/9FAEZj2Mm7z+EAmQjbB7TtXCPPRBd91lcVO6yTI+J5gx4wZSCAFeI3Jqi hmF0bpthTj051jXkFQJsnLzpE9wKyoUsMF5pFgmRTmCb9gXNwBA8Iu/enc7tIZCU W23dWjIxGtFvgiw5/O9YL/1AXJTxaVRk3XPbGigLOWzVWOlKIEdZNe7FGcQLlPZu bMKvDkDN4wz9aRnWN78XyWGTgh3/22Pb40awwFhP+vCW57oJtiGB2V+hIKSr19CL qoBASC/n597j+TLpuq0R7Z9vqm+3mDagfWl/NhQdy75ENuxgcnyNKLsbAN366IfV X1HZ/gukYEc5LkzqVHvhlOCJqf6rSEGbdxs6R1GrpPCsppmmhgH7X6oUFsNqpWKv XMAaq3si0qosMQ7WVcQ5PjooBy4TjFeWF0Ejo1pgn4bGe7103BLNHy9BZT3J4msW IZsQHmbrh0GH+2WYw3Sy5MZNmdKGiP2Bd291Go0UVct7MJhhgK9ov1SHEV4hgo+S 7FwNGsdzylQ3pDzA67OsBGt6K22VqxenCbUxqHmMiRZiPtVf1WlnCU7NPof+NMU9 DbkD97+NcUg0ANbl4Fm56NiLYxxDZYhvmunP5n30fK9pFOYKYV2C0anCNKkRLB4f FiY7DXqOw0VNcdiDPvyyHAI5C4Se7Oon7GBkDm4qpKWo/Y68J0k= =90A3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DE7BD198-A6D9-4704-BB2A-328B2E8D5A34--