1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9283F279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:07:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com
[209.85.212.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F32E516F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibhh20 with SMTP id hh20so149923054wib.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=5btxlI77gsXczo6B/fReCo79gya79OTB0aHkSQmn8vM=;
b=TRAsVCZeLWs4GYgvVrx4jTloGnf689Zg1QR575qumBcBDapATBj/PjZIN7t3qov4NZ
kYT17XXsO9g3UXfo6Z0b61/1EGllDaiuOAphGBWdgZwM0zktmMyc9NzL1F3OsYI4E162
LZV+cWd21EdBJSxZGDDt0aUNIe+HS/ougWWdPp50LlwWHP490V11rJvDt/Ja3Vsb/EwL
/GZ1iKLv0QnkEF4KIPXHcq7kx+TOP3zzM2bHu2TAvMo/TEsVv9vFydWllOFtdzqhOTIY
RK3T+okK0oyKbsnUanagkRUf+z+7Mzwn4QO7IHejA1DkqM7jHmFXruirlyddbOrOY0Z5
hokA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1NDsppFdwgIKX4YtErjp8WF6GojegGDh9b6HRxzAwpPZiZoOtwhCziCIg78woXHJFUE0U
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.13.195 with SMTP id fa3mr24486030wid.7.1439212011365;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKTMAi7xXo9r6PZ=N2UQ5A8zPRUw4=FsYwOV3wFn+ND3Fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55C75FC8.6070807@jrn.me.uk>
<CA+w+GKS4O176C4-oGw913xvNSXzaBPO-UpU3SrzWR2yE-gcTwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55C77E80.3060203@jrn.me.uk>
<CADv+LCxF5MoSFcCiqXnXXsfE5KvJmL0RQ4pOhmM-5eb2TH-ncg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADv+LCxoKwDvE0RBUHzfZ-Pp6nz66s_EpyKQ5jr-B5o+zGgHeA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp90W4JRv+G2G4SRdCi-h32i9cugFzZh9J_-v9RCYGdhw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTMAi7xXo9r6PZ=N2UQ5A8zPRUw4=FsYwOV3wFn+ND3Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:06:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr1=ezS_BdCe8YZVwhC6U31aVP7nTHrieD3ELnD+=h5WA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative chain support for payment protocol
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:07:03 -0000
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com> wrote:
> We're not modifying BIP 70, it's now immutable and can only be extended.
Well, yes, I guess it's modifying that in the extension BIP.
> There's really not much point in having a dedicated chain ID for regtest
> mode. You shouldn't be finding BIP70 requests for regtest outside of your
> own developer machine, where the id doesn't matter.
The point is not having exceptions and treating all supported chains
in the same way in the code.
Having a special case for regtest makes the code more complex, not simpler.
|
