{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Tomas Susanka [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Tomas Susanka [ARCHIVE] (npub1pz…xnfhv)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1pzhqhlvhvdg3ygr8keypprax6gg0qmsrtypmez67few4uzsvhqaqkxnfhv","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2018-06-25\n📝 Original message:Hi,\n\nthis is great.\n\nOn 23.6.2018 00:28, Achow101 via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\n\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e\n\u003e After reading the comments here about BIP 174, I would like to propose the following changes:\n\nFrom my perspective those are exactly the points I have felt strongly\nabout. I still think \"typed records\" would be a better choice, but it's\nsomething I'm willing to compromise on. As I'm looking at the draft, we\ncurrently have 13 records and only 3 of them have keys... Matejcik was a\nbit keener on this, so we'll try to discuss this more during the week\nand we also look at the draft more carefully to see if we can come up\nwith some nit-picks.\n\n\u003e - Encoding\n\u003e\n\u003e I have decided that PSBTs should either be in binary or encoded as a Base64 string. For the latter, several\n\u003e Bitcoin clients already support Base64 encoding of data (for signed messages) so this will not add any extra\n\u003e dependencies like Z85 would.\n\nI agree. If we're arguing for not using protobuf, because it is a\ndependency, we shouldn't add dependency for some lesser-known encoding\nformat.\n\nAs was partially brought up by William, shouldn't we consider using\nbech32? It doesn't break on double-click and it is a dependency for\nnative Segwit addresses anyway, so wallets might already support it or\nthey will at some point. But we should probably run some numbers on this\nfirst, since bech32 will obviously be larger than base64.\n\n\nOn 24.6.2018 10:28, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\n\u003e I disagree with the idea that global types can be removed. Firstly, it\n\u003e is less of a breaking change to leave it there than to remove it\n\u003e entirely. Secondly, there may be a point in the future where global\n\u003e types would be useful/necessary. By having it still be there, we allow\n\u003e for future extensibility.\n\nI agree. It doesn't hurt if the global section stays and it is more\nforward-looking.\n\n\nBest,\nTomas\n\nPS: This email didn't get through at first, so I hope this isn't a repost.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180625/b930777e/attachment.html\u003e"}