summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/10
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>2016-06-23 14:01:10 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2016-06-23 12:01:14 +0000
commit938c60cda354703392eff3b0030ea836208c7f35 (patch)
tree707c0bfb87e0ccf224989a973afcc99716783f14 /10
parent62f54157b61fed93b4d2035461183a760b4959d2 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-938c60cda354703392eff3b0030ea836208c7f35.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-938c60cda354703392eff3b0030ea836208c7f35.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
Diffstat (limited to '10')
-rw-r--r--10/f7275d6b81943412304f31d1cfa9b08832f8f4113
1 files changed, 113 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/10/f7275d6b81943412304f31d1cfa9b08832f8f4 b/10/f7275d6b81943412304f31d1cfa9b08832f8f4
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0e9feaf48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/10/f7275d6b81943412304f31d1cfa9b08832f8f4
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4363B941
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:01:14 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com
+ [209.85.215.48])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 826EF19F
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:01:13 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id q132so94038769lfe.3
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
+ h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
+ :cc; bh=XYSNFOMP1SCJ+NQZFZVhK+HjqTnnXcbdm9nhEY3AEU0=;
+ b=xsh3Q4/BpMLMRwWYc4n1LGDSc/SwLrLY/F+aJ7EYGgdtxCX8rEDudzxjky6Nvwsbm5
+ qCtbMBZlToTHTY0cGSLboR05NxgwHGWw9Z5QkGm82xwqitkIKeIc3sNkJE7jkjB/9srE
+ 7RstK0VnrEJ2lHJojmfBCBHH6ORwBmQUGerZMnTmP2bpp2uCFYr+y+y7of6Aj3Vy9Gpp
+ vDq2N+TgISWI/Q95j/C9MfjO0gibtoGjALP5ohtRU6Y+J7umPf+wWk3CeFxWWiKlzO1Z
+ f05ZHPINSVlIP+389xAHVSrLEuBgmTxpMqLEdZJaeWVGDpIEe+aWCNu3w5Ez3EfuaC3Z
+ 0B3A==
+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:from:date
+ :message-id:subject:to:cc;
+ bh=XYSNFOMP1SCJ+NQZFZVhK+HjqTnnXcbdm9nhEY3AEU0=;
+ b=ZFVMAntaoxJgqyAQwZJffh763FZoFurkCA6uyJNgEtcF33+QqfRjL31LzorF0kTxXq
+ NawZAGS97UZI0gFqkZlDYkcRl8uak+4qmAZBVDbxZ60Gs821bIdbvi6nJV8ddaS22Gv4
+ cSiL3z5TxY+pB4k6QJu12jWO5bgTI/tYtwrHxBRqSRNDGvOTyKtwoGDj23a1RmExdVsb
+ atu81zDQKwrLN8sbWGbL7qCOjp+bdLFlj2lwOiflWNCJ4zOOOCvyglm19NbVPN6zXme8
+ iJfOe5KFRjqI79EuIAvSdNHbpvQdL0GjEvY9Mfyf2iwdaROSAqVrQR73rL1tmrQ4P9ih
+ vRbQ==
+X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKRE6oiJfjlCKxx2UA5p0bPJKYM6OL7MuSWo8tUSOc2y7X4WS3y/BdDBSrjp42gCr4vyEmCkW4cjndjwQ==
+X-Received: by 10.46.5.15 with SMTP id 15mr10959663ljf.10.1466683271579; Thu,
+ 23 Jun 2016 05:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Received: by 10.114.180.101 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
+In-Reply-To: <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm>
+References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
+ <CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
+ <CAPg+sBg90FxbEy1smp9mn+djF-N6PdUprtQ7r_kgvKCGbTHndQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm>
+From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
+Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:01:10 +0200
+Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiqh80Q4Dfm0y6aEX+gHrcHZMq3tckejx8KDCPb-ikkOg@mail.gmail.com>
+To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
+ DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
+ 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] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:01:14 -0000
+
+On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
+> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
+>> On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
+>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+>>
+>> > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips
+>> repository,
+>> > and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin
+>> developers
+>> > to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for
+>> Tor to
+>> > add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor
+>> tactical
+>> > wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it.
+>>
+>> I hope you're not seriously suggesting to censor a BIP because you feel it
+>> is a bad idea.
+>
+> For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication
+> platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by
+> accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them.
+
+We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that
+repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on
+proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github
+is a historical artifact.
+
+> I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips
+> repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere.
+
+Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's
+more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there
+community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference
+implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons
+to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a
+BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend
+against its usage.
+
+--
+Pieter
+