BIP75 - Out of Band Address Exchange

BIP75 - Out of Band Address Exchange
2016-03-11 11:54 ` Andreas Schildbach
  
From: James MacWhyte @ 2016-03-10 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1337 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1594 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-03-10 21:43 [bitcoin-dev] BIP75 - Out of Band Address Exchange James MacWhyte

  2016-03-11 19:32   ` James MacWhyte
  2016-03-11 22:43   ` Justin Newton
  
From: Andreas Schildbach @ 2016-03-11 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 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 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
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-03-11 11:54 ` Andreas Schildbach

  2016-03-12 14:40     ` Andreas Schildbach
  2016-03-11 22:43   ` Justin Newton
  
From: James MacWhyte @ 2016-03-11 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andreas Schildbach, bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2636 bytes --]

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 split it into two and make a separate proposal.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <
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
> > 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: 3683 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-03-11 11:54 ` Andreas Schildbach
  2016-03-11 19:32   ` James MacWhyte

  2016-03-12 15:00     ` Andreas Schildbach
  
From: Justin Newton @ 2016-03-11 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andreas Schildbach;  Bitcoin Dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2684 bytes --]

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> 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
> > 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

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4998 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: PastedGraphic-1.tiff --]
[-- Type: image/tiff, Size: 10972 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-03-11 19:32   ` James MacWhyte

  
From: Andreas Schildbach @ 2016-03-12 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 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 hierarchy part (and use BIP43/44 instead). I tried to
split up BIP32 into two BIPs later (without any content changes), but it
was declined because of its final state.

There is no harm in using a BIP only for a small thing, BIP numbers are
infinite.


On 03/11/2016 08:32 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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 split it into two and make a separate proposal.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-03-11 22:43   ` Justin Newton

  2016-03-17  1:23       ` James MacWhyte
  
From: Andreas Schildbach @ 2016-03-12 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 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 (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
> 




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-03-12 15:00     ` Andreas Schildbach

  
From: James MacWhyte @ 2016-03-17  1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andreas Schildbach, bitcoin-dev

[-- 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 --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]