Published on: 2019-11-14T12:31:44+00:00
The topic of Bitcoin protocol standardization was discussed in an email conversation between two individuals. The first individual argues that Bitcoin, being an open protocol, won't deprecate other protocols without a strong reason, as no individual gets to dictate "the right way". However, the second individual believes that wallet developers prefer keeping things simple until a clear path is seen. They differentiate between building a Bitcoin wallet and a cryptocurrency wallet, thus dismissing complexities faced by other cryptocurrencies. BIP-70 was mentioned as being deprecated *in* Bitcoin Core by the second individual. The first individual suggests that under-supported standards pose a problem as they take longer for wallet developers to implement. But the second individual disagrees, believing that the payment protocol is separate from the blockchain and can be developed independently. They view the Lightning Network as a payment network applicable to other blockchains as well. The second individual fails to understand the value of requesting payment in one currency based on the value of another, considering the current behavior superior. The first individual disagrees, stating that a well-written spec should address conflicts and design around them. The second individual opposes proposals adding complexity without clear benefits. They feel that Lightning invoices and ongoing discussions provide sufficient coverage for their needs.The proposal to merge cryptocurrency URI schemes is being discussed in response to concerns raised by Ben Dewaal. Existing standards are not fully implemented in any wallet, requiring multiple schemes to be maintained, which is cumbersome for developers. Merging the major proposed standards into a single one allows efforts to focus on a unified protocol, dropping what doesn't work. This basis would facilitate more complex payment systems with advanced features, reducing necessary attributes. Different levels of support could be introduced, such as 'pay: simple' or 'pay: multi', accommodating various types of payments. Concerns about defining attributes and ensuring correct software interpretation are addressed, suggesting the fixing of difficult-to-interpret aspects before standardization. Eventually, wallets and payment systems would fully support this standard, enabling them to claim 'pay:' supported.However, Ben does not find the proposal to add a new URI scheme for wallet developers beneficial. He identifies three main problems: the coexistence of other schemes alongside the new one creates more work without easing developers' lives, simple URI schemes become less suitable and future-proof as payment systems grow complex, and defining attributes and potential errors becomes unreasonable, leading to incompatible implementations. Ben fails to see the merits of this proposal.Another proposal seeks to establish a payment protocol independent of a specific blockchain, usable with fiat or cryptocurrency. The protocol allows multiple payments and currencies in a single transaction, referencing the value of one currency while paying in another. It also permits fees to be paid by either the sender or recipient, with trusted third parties calculating valuation and fees. The aim is to create a single payment system for wallet developers working with multiple currencies and increase support for a universal protocol across various currencies and blockchains. The author acknowledges opposition due to support for other coins but emphasizes considering the proposal's potential to enhance Bitcoin functionality and promote a universal payment protocol. While future sections on smart contracts and private communications are planned, the current focus is on payments and maintaining functionality for all blockchains. The proposal hopes to evolve into a BIP but requests constructive criticism and feedback before moving forward.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T01:32:25.593917+00:00