Published on: 2012-01-28T16:32:15+00:00
In a forum post from January 2012, it was noted that Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 21 had already been implemented in many clients throughout 2011. However, Bitcoin-Qt was lagging behind and considered not relevant. Bitcoin Wallet for Android only implemented parts of the specification, leaving out certain notations and parameters. The "send" feature was also not yet implemented.A discussion about Bitcoin transactions took place, with Wladimir stating that the subset implemented by bitcoin-qt allows for the description of all desirable transactions. He argued that the rest of the specification is redundant and unnecessary. Luke-Jr mentioned that the version on the wiki for BIP 20 contained extraneous information not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt. Wladimir declined to reopen the debate, citing a biased poll and lack of links to Luke-Jr's version.On the Bitcoin mailing list, there was a discussion about the implementation of BIP 20, a proposal for a uniform payment protocol. The original poster claimed that BIP 20 had been implemented in many Bitcoin clients since 2011 and had recently been added to Bitcoin-Qt for system URI handling. Another participant disagreed, stating that the version on the wiki had extraneous information and was not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt due to a vote against it during the specification process. The original poster responded by accusing the other participant of losing a biased poll and claimed that there were no links to their version of BIP 20.A member of the bitcoin-list at bluematt.me mentioned that Bitcoin-Qt had implemented drag-and-drop and system URI handling, but this was not new as many clients had already done so in 2011. They also pointed out that the version of BIP 20 on the wiki contained extraneous information that was voted against during the specification process.BIP 20, an old URI scheme, had been finalized according to BIP 1 standards in late January 2011. However, the version on the wiki included unnecessary information that was explicitly voted against during the specification process. Amir Taaki suggested revisiting the URI scheme for revision and eventually moving BIP 20 to replaced/superseded status after P2SH is deployed.Amir Taaki mentioned that BIP 0020, an old URI scheme, had been given draft status, although it had already been finalized according to BIP 1 standards since late January 2011. He proposed revisiting the URI scheme for revision once P2SH is deployed and eventually replacing or superseding BIP 20.BIP 0020, the old URI scheme, is currently in draft status. The decision to move it to accepted status or not is unclear, as there was a discussion last year that the speaker does not have enough information about. However, the speaker believes that having a re-decision on the matter is healthy, even if it was accepted last year, as it is important to have a standardization process before having a standard. BIP 0020 remains in draft status until there is a general agreement.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T02:54:45.607408+00:00