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

2016-03-19 Thread James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev
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

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

2016-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
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 (wh

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

2016-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
Yes, it makes sense. A BIP is something people refer to, either just by its number or by URL, and with multiple orthogonal "sub-BIPs" it's difficult to refer to. We have this problem with BIP32 already -- all HD wallets implement the derivation part of BIP32 but almost none do implement the hierarc

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

2016-03-11 Thread James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev
That's a valid point, and one we had thought of, which is why I wanted to get everyone's opinion. I agree the proposed field extensions have nothing to do with encryption, but does it make sense to propose a completely separate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the accepted way to go, we can s

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

2016-03-11 Thread Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev
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 bitco

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

2016-03-11 Thread Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
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 MacWh

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

2016-03-10 Thread James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev
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