Published on: 2012-01-31T13:20:10+00:00
In a series of email conversations in 2012, various aspects of the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 21 and BIP 20 are discussed. Gavin Andresen expresses his preference for BIP 21, stating that "simpler is better." He also supports the idea of signing and dating URIs but suggests waiting for consensus around BIP 21 before pursuing it.The discussion revolves around the treatment of unknown URL parameters and the need for future backward-compatible changes.Wladimir believes that unknown URL parameters should be ignored, as this is standard practice, but acknowledges that certain parameters may need to be refused to maintain compatibility. Gary Rowe and Pieter agree that simplicity is best, with Rowe suggesting that the "expires" field is more important than a block number. They discuss the need for defining standards upfront and the inclusion of optional fields in BIP 21.The discussion also touches on the 'send' parameter and the 'version' parameter in BIP 21, with questions raised about their practical use and how clients should handle them. The email exchange includes proposals, modifications, and opinions from various individuals, including Matt Corallo, Andreas Schildbach, Amir Taaki, and Luke-Jr.The concept of a signed URI is discussed as a way to protect consumers against fraudulent sellers. However, concerns are raised about the potential for attackers to replace the URI with their own fraudulent address. The MultiBit team proposes adding an "expires" field to the BIP 21 proposal to allow merchants to issue Bitcoin URIs with a defined expiration period.The email exchanges also mention the differences between BIP 20 and BIP 21, with Gary Rowe arguing that BIP 21 reduces complexity for end clients. There is a debate about the representation of the "amount" field in Bitcoin transactions, with BIP 21 requiring decimal notation while BIP 20 allows alternative representations. The MultiBit team expresses support for BIP 21 and clarifies that they will not be supporting Tonal Bitcoins.The discussions highlight the need for practical use cases, clarity in parameter definitions, and forward compatibility in BIPs. The email exchanges include links to forum posts and websites for further information on proposals and modifications.Matt Corallo has proposed a modification to BIP 20, which removes the non-decimal number related components. The modification can be found on the Bitcoin wiki page for BIP 0021. In an email, the author is being requested to become a champion for the submitted BIP.At present, GUI client implementations such as MultiBit or Bitcoin-Qt are being queried about their support for either BIP 20 or BIP 21. GUIs that have implemented the URI scheme are given more importance in this evaluation process. The objective is to establish a general consensus regarding the preferred BIP. Any objections to this approach are welcomed.In addition to the discussion on BIP support, the email also includes an advertisement for an online learning library for Microsoft developers.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T02:56:29.300010+00:00