Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP75 - Out of Band Address Exchange

From: James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail•com>
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach•de>,
	bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP75 - Out of Band Address Exchange
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:23:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH+Axy6R5m2DTOpm=-u8kUf8LhwUEkPMJinST-5cATa2zVXxxg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nc1at9$8gi$1@ger.gmane.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5099 bytes --]

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’d prefer to keep them together if the
> > changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP’s, but 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:
> >
> >     I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with
> >     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 Address
> >     > 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 the
> >     > 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 refuse
> RBF
> >     > transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based
> 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 these
> >     > 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#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails
> >     >
> >     > The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks!
> >     >
> >     > James
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >     > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> >     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> >     > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >     >
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >     bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> >     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> >     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Justin W. Newton
> > Founder/CEO
> > Netki, Inc.
> >
> > justin@netki•com <mailto:justin@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/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7481 bytes --]