Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BIP 321: URI Scheme (Replace BIP 21 with a new BIP containing information about more modern usage of it) #1555

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
166 changes: 166 additions & 0 deletions bip-XXXX.mediawiki
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
<pre>
BIP: XXXX
Layer: Applications
Title: URI Scheme
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you want to use the exact same title?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yea, I don't see why we'd change it.

Author: Matt Corallo <[email protected]>
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-XXXX
Status: Proposed
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2024-07-13
</pre>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing License header, and should probably have a Replaces header:

Suggested change
</pre>
License: ?
Replaces: 21
</pre>

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I cannot assign this document a license given a substantial portion was written by @luke-jr. I'm happy to assign my contributions whatever license he wants for his.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah apologies, BIP 20 is licensed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this Replaces: 21 then BIP21 could also be updated to Status: Replaced.


This BIP is a modification of [[bip-0021.mediawiki|BIP 0021]] to add information about the modern usage of bitcoin: URIs as well as provide forward-looking guidance on how to incorporate new payment instructions. BIP 21 was based on BIP 20, which was, in turn based off an earlier document by Nils Schneider.
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

==Abstract==
This BIP proposes a URI scheme for making Bitcoin payments.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"making payments"?

Suggested change
This BIP proposes a URI scheme for making Bitcoin payments.
This BIP proposes a URI scheme to serve Bitcoin payment requests.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Went with This BIP proposes a URI scheme for describing Bitcoin payment receipt information.


Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Th Copyright section is missing. Judging from the header:

Suggested change
==Copyright==
This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license.

==Motivation==
The purpose of this URI scheme is to enable users to easily make payments by simply clicking links on webpages or scanning QR Codes.
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

==Specification==

=== General rules for handling (important!) ===

Bitcoin clients MUST NOT act on URIs without getting the user's authorization.
They SHOULD require the user to manually approve each payment individually, though in some cases they MAY allow the user to automatically make this decision.

=== Operating system integration ===
Graphical bitcoin clients SHOULD register themselves as the handler for the "bitcoin:" URI scheme by default, if no other handler is already registered. If there is already a registered handler, they MAY prompt the user to change it once when they first run the client.

=== General Format ===

Bitcoin URIs follow the general format for URIs as set forth in RFC 3986. The path component consists of a bitcoin address, and the query component provides additional payment options.

Elements of the query component may contain characters outside the valid range. These must first be encoded according to UTF-8, and then each octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence must be percent-encoded as described in RFC 3986.

=== ABNF grammar ===

(See also [[#Simpler syntax|a simpler representation of syntax]])

bitcoinurn = "bitcoin:" [ bitcoinaddress ] [ "?" bitcoinparams ]
bitcoinaddress = *base58 / *bech32 / *bech32m
bitcoinparams = bitcoinparam [ "&" bitcoinparams ]
bitcoinparam = [ amountparam / labelparam / messageparam / otherparam / reqparam ]
amountparam = "amount=" *digit [ "." *digit ]
labelparam = "label=" *qchar
messageparam = "message=" *qchar
otherparam = qchar *qchar [ "=" *qchar ]
reqparam = "req-" qchar *qchar [ "=" *qchar ]

Here, "qchar" corresponds to valid characters of an RFC 3986 URI query component, excluding the "=" and "&" characters, which this BIP takes as separators.

The scheme component ("bitcoin:") is case-insensitive, and implementations must accept any combination of uppercase and lowercase letters. The query parameter keys are also case-insensitive. Query parameter values and bitcoin address fields may be case-sensitive depending on their content.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It’s a good change, but please mention the case-insensitivity of query parameter keys in the Backwards Compatibility section, since BIP 21 specified query parameter keys to be case-sensitive.


=== Bitcoin Address ===

The bitcoinaddress body MUST be either a base58 P2SH or P2PKH address, bech32 Segwit version 0 address, bech32m Segwit address, or empty. Future address formats SHOULD instead be placed in query keys as optional payment instructions to provide backwards compatibility during upgrade cycles. After new address types are near-universally supported, or for recipients wishing to avoid a standard on-chain fallback, the bitcoinaddress part of the URI MAY be left empty.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[…] or for recipients wishing to avoid a standard on-chain fallback […]

Some of this last sentence repeats prior specification parts and the rest could probably be in Rationale

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This section describes normative behavior so we can't move it (otherwise its not clear you can set the address part empty), not sure which parts are redundant with elsewhere, aside from the ABNF grammar, but I prefer to have it in text as well.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I’m not sure what I exactly meant back then. Either way, it’s not clear to me why this mentions "After new address types are near-universally supported". If the receiver wants to only offer specific optional payment methods even while they are not broadly supported, that’s up to the receiver.

Suggested change
The bitcoinaddress body MUST be either a base58 P2SH or P2PKH address, bech32 Segwit version 0 address, bech32m Segwit address, or empty. Future address formats SHOULD instead be placed in query keys as optional payment instructions to provide backwards compatibility during upgrade cycles. After new address types are near-universally supported, or for recipients wishing to avoid a standard on-chain fallback, the bitcoinaddress part of the URI MAY be left empty.
The bitcoinaddress body MUST be either a base58 P2SH or P2PKH address, bech32 Segwit version 0 address, bech32m Segwit address, or empty. Future address formats SHOULD instead be placed in query keys as optional payment instructions to provide backwards compatibility during upgrade cycles. The bitcoinaddress part of the URI MAY be left empty, if there is at least one optional payment instruction provided and the recipient does not want to provide a static on-chain payment method.


=== Query Keys ===

The following keys are defined generally and apply to any URI regardless of payment instructions:

*label: Label for that address (e.g. name of receiver)
*address: bitcoin address
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the "address" query key used for, if all base58, bech32, and bech32m addresses are permitted in the body, and new payment instructions using bech32[m] should use the HRP? Is the intent to provide a fall-back address from the set of addresses permitted in the body, in case the address in the body is not supported by the sender’s client?

Alternatively, should the body contain the type that is most likely to be supported by the client? Is there a way for the receiver to express which address type they’d prefer if multiple were provided?

If I wanted to express a preference for P2TR, have a P2WPKH fallback, and for people from the last decade also provide a P2PKH address, how would I do that?

bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?address=bc1qp2wpkhaddress?bc=bc1ppaytotaprootaddress

bitcoin:bc1ppaytotaprootaddress?address=175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?bc=bc1qp2wpkhaddress

*message: message that describes the transaction to the user ([[#Examples|see examples below]])

The following keys are currently defined for payment instructions of various forms:

*lightning: Lightning BOLT 11 invoices
*lno: Lightning BOLT12 offers
*sp: Silent Payment addresses

New payment instructions using bech32 or bech32m encodings SHOULD reuse their address format's Human Readable Part as the parameter key.
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the discussion on this PR, some reviewers were suggesting using bc1q and bc1p as parameter keys for native segwit payment instructions. In case that was meant to be proposed here, I wanted to point out that the human-readable part for all native segwit versions is bc.

If you meant to propose that bc1q, bc1p, bc1z, to be used, this could be described as:

Suggested change
New payment instructions using bech32 or bech32m encodings SHOULD reuse their address format's Human Readable Part as the parameter key.
New payment instructions using bech32 or bech32m encodings SHOULD reuse their address format's _human-readable part (HRP)_ as the parameter key. As all native segwit outputs share the same HRP, Bech32m addresses for future native segwit output types SHOULD use the four-character prefix of the address as the parameter key, e.g. `bc1p`, `bc1z`, `bc1r`, etc.


==== Transfer amount ====

If an amount is provided, it MUST be specified in decimal BTC.
All amounts MUST contain no commas and use a period (.) as the separating character to separate whole numbers and decimal fractions.
I.e. amount=50.00 or amount=50 is treated as 50 BTC, and amount=50,000.00 is invalid.

Bitcoin clients MAY display the amount in any format that is not intended to deceive the user.
They SHOULD choose a format that is foremost least confusing, and only after that most reasonable given the amount requested.
For example, so long as the majority of users work in BTC units, values should always be displayed in BTC by default, even if mBTC or TBC would otherwise be a more logical interpretation of the amount.
== Rationale ==

===Payment identifiers, not person identifiers===
Best practices are that a unique address should be used for every transaction on-chain.
Therefore, a URI which contains an on-chain payment address MUST NOT represent an exchange of personal information, but a one-time payment instruction. URIs which represent only reusable non-address-reusing payment instructions (like Lightning BOLT12 offers or Silent Payments) MAY be reused as a wallet sees fit.

===Accessibility (URI scheme name)===
Should someone from the outside happen to see such a URI, the URI scheme name already gives a description.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This sentence is confusing. Who is someone from the outside? What is "such a URI"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just removed this section. I don't think we need to justify the use of the bitcoin: prefix these days lol.

A quick search should then do the rest to help them find the resources needed to make their payment.
Other proposed names sound much more cryptic; the chance that someone googles that out of curiosity are much slimmer.
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Also, very likely, what he will find are mostly technical specifications - not the best introduction to bitcoin.

==Forward compatibility==
Variables which are prefixed with a req- are considered required. If a client does not implement any variables which are prefixed with req-, it MUST consider the entire URI invalid. Any other variables which are not implemented, but which are not prefixed with a req-, can be safely ignored.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you mean "query parameters" instead of variables here?


As future new address types should be added using query parameters rather than the `bitcoinaddress` field, URIs can seamlessly support many payment instructions while senders only support legacy instructions. This allows for senders to be able to pay newer recipients while still allowing the use of more modern payment instruction formats.
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

==Backward compatibility==
As this BIP is written, several clients already implement a bitcoin: URI scheme similar to this one, however usually without the additional "req-" prefix requirement. Thus, it is recommended that additional variables prefixed with req- not be used in a mission-critical way until a grace period of 6 months from the finalization of this BIP has passed in order to allow client developers to release new versions, and users of old clients to upgrade.

Compared to BIP 21, this document describes standard query parameters containing payment instructions, allows bech32 and bech32m `bitcoinaddress` fields, and allow for future URIs with an empty `bitcoinaddress` field. Use of bech32 and bech32m `bitcoinaddress` fields were long-since common practice in 2024, and the `lightning` query parameter storing BOLT 11 payment instructions became common practice in the year or three leading up to 2024. Inclusion of standard query parameters was added to provide guidance on query parameter usage going forward.
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Any existing BIP 21 implementation should automatically be fully compliant with this BIP, as the changes only describe existing practice or impact future address format inclusion.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As mentioned above, BIP 21 required query parameters to be case-sensitive

The rest of the URI is case-sensitive, including the query parameter keys.

while this proposal allows them to be any case. This should be mentioned in the Backward Compatibility section.


== Appendix ==

=== Simpler syntax ===

This section is non-normative and does not cover all possible syntax.
Please see the BNF grammar above for the normative syntax.
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

[foo] means optional, &lt;bar&gt; are placeholders

<nowiki>bitcoin:<address>[?amount=<amount>][?label=<label>][?message=<message>]</nowiki>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This section confuses me. It feels like I’m missing some context. Is this supposed to provide a simplified syntax for some part of the implementers? Who is supposed to use the simplified syntax? Under what circumstances should this syntax be used? What are the trade-offs?


=== Examples ===
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Just the address:
bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W

Address with name:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Address with name:
Address with recipient’s name as label:

bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?label=Luke-Jr

Request 20.30 BTC to "Luke-Jr":
bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?amount=20.3&label=Luke-Jr

Request 50 BTC with message:
bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?amount=50&label=Luke-Jr&message=Donation%20for%20project%20xyz

Request funds to be paid over lightning to a BOLT 11 invoice with a fallback to on-chain payments:
bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?lightning=lnbc420bogusinvoice

Request funds to be paid over lightning to a BOLT 11 invoice with no fallback:
bitcoin:?lightning=lnbc420bogusinvoice

Request funds to be paid over lightning to a BOLT 12 offer with no fallback:
bitcoin:?lno=lno1bogusoffer

Request funds to be paid over lightning to a BOLT 12 offer or silent payments address with no fallback:
bitcoin:?lno=lno1bogusoffer&sp=sp1qsilentpayment

Request funds to be paid to a silent payments address with no fallback:
bitcoin:?sp=sp1qsilentpayment

Request funds to be paid to a silent payments address with a fallback:
bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?sp=sp1qsilentpayment

Some future version that has variables which are (currently) not understood and required and thus invalid:
bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?req-somethingyoudontunderstand=50&req-somethingelseyoudontget=999

Some future version that has variables which are (currently) not understood but not required and thus valid:
bitcoin:175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W?somethingyoudontunderstand=50&somethingelseyoudontget=999

Characters must be URI encoded properly.

== Reference Implementations ==
=== Bitcoin clients ===
* Bitcoin-Qt supports the old version of Bitcoin URIs (ie without the req- prefix), with Windows and KDE integration as of commit 70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609d23cc858.

=== Libraries ===
* Javascript - https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bip21
* Java - https://github.com/SandroMachado/BitcoinPaymentURI
* Swift - https://github.com/SandroMachado/BitcoinPaymentURISwift
TheBlueMatt marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved