diff options
author | Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> | 2016-06-23 14:01:10 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2016-06-23 12:01:14 +0000 |
commit | 938c60cda354703392eff3b0030ea836208c7f35 (patch) | |
tree | 707c0bfb87e0ccf224989a973afcc99716783f14 /10 | |
parent | 62f54157b61fed93b4d2035461183a760b4959d2 (diff) | |
download | pi-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/f7275d6b81943412304f31d1cfa9b08832f8f4 | 113 |
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 + |