Published on: 2016-06-24T05:27:36+00:00
BIP0075 is an encrypted/encapsulated version of BIP70 that ensures the safe exchange of BIP70 messages through an intermediary. However, it has sparked a debate about user-friendliness and privacy in Bitcoin. Justin Newton suggests using software wallets like breadwallet to keep information private, as BIP75 allows direct exchange of identity information between peers without involving the blockchain or network. There are concerns about UK legislation compelling service providers to hand over data, but BIP75 and software wallets can help protect user privacy as the information is not stored on the blockchain. However, some people may need transactional identity for fraud reduction and regulatory reasons.The bitcoin-dev community is against implementing built-in anti-money laundering (AML) or know-your-customer (KYC) tools in Bitcoin, as it could draw expectations from all users to authorities. BIP75 allows voluntary identity exchange at the application level, without passing through or storing the blockchain. Peter Todd argues against participating in AML/KYC practices and suggests removing BIP75 from the bips repository and boycotting wallets that implement it. Pieter Wuille disagrees, stating that censorship based on personal opinion is not appropriate and that editorial control should be based on objective processes.The practicality of maintaining infrastructure for payment protocol is discussed, with some participants noting that it may be impractical for end users. There is also mention of an unencrypted version of BIP70 available via Bluetooth for face-to-face transfers.In terms of editorial control over BIPs, Pieter Wuille believes that some degree of editorial control is inevitable but should be restricted to objective processes. Peter Todd suggests rejecting BIP75 on ethical and strategic grounds, but Wuille disagrees and calls it ridiculous. The conversation then shifts to the acceptance of future BIPs related to AML/KYC support.The discussion also highlights the importance of incorporating subscriptions into the protocol to facilitate Bitcoin's use as a real payment system. It is suggested that subscription information should be stored in the customer's wallet, and wallets should be responsible for initiating subscriptions on behalf of users. Expanding Bitcoin URIs to include signatures is also recommended.The discussion on improving BIP0070 explores using JSON messages instead of Protocol Buffers, alternative schemes for merchant identification, and improving subscription support. There are debates over the efficiency and potential bugs of JSON and whether existing solutions like HTTPS or Keybase are sufficient. The debate between using Protocol Buffers or JSON for the protocol itself is also discussed, with considerations for efficiency, ease of use, and security. The need for additional PKI types and identity methods is addressed, along with suggestions to expand the pki_data slot in BIP0070. The BIP75 protocol is mentioned as a way to share identity information out-of-band, independently of any name resolution system. Suggestions are made to expand the pki_data slot in BIP75 to accommodate new identity types.Overall, the discussions emphasize the desire for improvements in the BIP0070 protocol, including the use of JSON messages, alternative merchant identification schemes, enhanced subscription support, and multi-mode identity mechanisms. Different opinions are presented regarding the best approach, considering factors such as user-friendliness, efficiency, extensibility, and privacy.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T18:30:27.918670+00:00