BIP 0020: URI Scheme
7 messages, 27 to 28 Jan 2012. Started by Amir Taaki.
Luke Dashjr (2), Matt Corallo (2), Amir Taaki, Wladimir J. van der Laan, Andreas Schildbach
BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized.
ATM it is Draft status.
I do not know enough about the discussion back last year to know whether to move it to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a re-decision (even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it makes no sense to have a standard before a standardisation process existed.
For now, it is Draft status until there's a general agreement.
On Friday, January 27, 2012 5:51:04 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
Quoted text (3 lines)
> BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized. > > ATM it is Draft status.
It's been Final (even according to BIP 1 standards) since late January 2011. The only change recently is assigning it a BIP number for formality.
Quoted text (4 lines)
> I do not know enough about the discussion back last year to know whether to > move it to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a > re-decision (even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it makes > no sense to have a standard before a standardisation process existed.
Once P2SH is deployed, it will probably make good sense to revisit the URI Scheme for revision, and eventually move BIP 20 to Replaced/Superceded status.
It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of Bitcoin-Qt for drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609d23cc858. However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of extraneous crap in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since it was explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed. If that stuff were removed, I would agree that it is final.
Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2012 5:51:04 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
Quoted text (3 lines)
> BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized. > > ATM it is Draft status.
It's been Final (even according to BIP 1 standards) since late January 2011. The only change recently is assigning it a BIP number for formality.
Quoted text (4 lines)
> I do not know enough about the discussion back last year to know whether to > move it to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a > re-decision (even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it makes > no sense to have a standard before a standardisation process existed.
Once P2SH is deployed, it will probably make good sense to revisit the URI Scheme for revision, and eventually move BIP 20 to Replaced/Superceded status.
_____________________________________________
Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
On Friday, January 27, 2012 7:36:31 PM bitcoin-list@bluematt•me wrote:
Quoted text (4 lines)
> It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of Bitcoin-Qt for > drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609 > d23cc858.
It's been implemented in many clients for nearly all 2011. Bitcoin-Qt is just behind the pace. Not relevant.
Quoted text (3 lines)
> However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of extraneous crap > in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since it was > explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed.
You mean 3 months *after* the spec had a consensus and multiple implementations.
Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
Quoted text (19 lines)
>On Friday, January 27, 2012 7:36:31 PM bitcoin-list@bluematt•me wrote: >> It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of >Bitcoin-Qt for >> drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in >> >https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609 >> d23cc858. > >It's been implemented in many clients for nearly all 2011. >Bitcoin-Qt is just behind the pace. Not relevant. > >> However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of >extraneous crap >> in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since >it was >> explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed. > >You mean 3 months *after* the spec had a consensus and multiple >implementations.
I'm really not gonna reopen this debate. You made a poll that was worded in the most biased way I could think of and still lost. The multiple implementations were written but you and I know of no sites that actually had links to your version.
I'd state it this way: a spec needs to be minimally complete
The subset implemented by bitcoin-qt allows description of *all* currently desirable bitcoin transactions.
The rest of the spec is simply other ways to describe the same = redundancy
In case new transaction types are added, the spec obviously needs to be extended. But not with a zillion ways to write "send XXX coins to YYY".
Anyway, that's my last word about it.
Wladimir
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:12 AM, <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me> wrote:
Quoted text (41 lines)
> > > Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote: > > >On Friday, January 27, 2012 7:36:31 PM bitcoin-list@bluematt•me wrote: > >> It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of > >Bitcoin-Qt for > >> drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in > >> > > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609 > >> d23cc858. > > > >It's been implemented in many clients for nearly all 2011. > >Bitcoin-Qt is just behind the pace. Not relevant. > > > >> However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of > >extraneous crap > >> in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since > >it was > >> explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed. > > > >You mean 3 months *after* the spec had a consensus and multiple > >implementations. > I'm really not gonna reopen this debate. You made a poll that was worded > in the most biased way I could think of and still lost. The multiple > implementations were written but you and I know of no sites that actually > had links to your version. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >
On 01/28/2012 02:45 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
Quoted text (2 lines)
> It's been implemented in many clients for nearly all 2011. > Bitcoin-Qt is just behind the pace. Not relevant.
Bitcoin Wallet for Android implements only parts of this spec:
The hexadecimal notations (x) and exponent notations (X) feel horribly redundant to me and are thus not implemented.
"label" and "message" parameters are not implemented right now, but will probably be in a later version.
"send" is also not implemented.
Cheers,
Andreas