summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorWladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>2014-04-04 09:01:48 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2014-04-04 07:01:55 +0000
commit250972e0314f65879d5ee4191563583732d175e7 (patch)
treee7af03af7dcc8b5b905a5213ea6753a941ba7f6b
parent431719d09a275c98ff3f0dbe6ef53db729389d41 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-250972e0314f65879d5ee4191563583732d175e7.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-250972e0314f65879d5ee4191563583732d175e7.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin
-rw-r--r--90/a2c080476a57adb16ff684e7050ebd9069bc49139
1 files changed, 139 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/90/a2c080476a57adb16ff684e7050ebd9069bc49 b/90/a2c080476a57adb16ff684e7050ebd9069bc49
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8e0f4fd0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/90/a2c080476a57adb16ff684e7050ebd9069bc49
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WVy8R-0007R0-5Y
+ for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:01:55 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
+Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
+ by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1WVy8Q-0006Tr-8v
+ for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:01:55 +0000
+Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hl10so579572igb.6
+ for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Received: by 10.50.122.8 with SMTP id lo8mr1275473igb.31.1396594908940; Fri,
+ 04 Apr 2014 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
+In-Reply-To: <533E29F0.1080901@jerviss.org>
+References: <CAPg+sBh1_mYH4JNv1xTFnLsoC=qzmgi0QaLAyd7YeQ=wZQBDSQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <1784069.HYVIiriube@crushinator> <533E29F0.1080901@jerviss.org>
+Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:01:48 +0200
+Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBr-UOqYFGVpann-yUkmB5oj4a7fu=GKw-34+4UMbsP1g@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
+To: kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015384fe71514504f632174a
+X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
+ -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
+ sender-domain
+ 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
+ (laanwj[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
+ author's domain
+ 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
+ not necessarily valid
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
+X-Headers-End: 1WVy8Q-0006Tr-8v
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:01:55 -0000
+
+--089e015384fe71514504f632174a
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+
+On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:41 AM, kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org> wrote:
+
+> Matt Whitlock wrote:
+> > The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be
+> 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.
+> >
+> At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I
+> looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format. As far
+> as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates
+> ISO 8601 by half a decade.
+>
+> Since we don't have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, if
+> we desired, adopt a sensible date format here. The cost to the
+> community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen
+> people needing to update scripts. It could even be as simple as one guy
+> running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g
+>
+
+BIPs were based on Python PIPs, PIPs use this same ordering but spell out
+the month like '1-Oct-2000'. This is slightly more readable than our format.
+
+http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/
+
+But to make it more confusing they have two different date conventions
+within the header (one for the modified date, and one for the created date).
+
+Personally I'd prefer to standardize on ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) dates as well.
+
+Feel free to submit a pull against bips/bips that changes around the dates.
+
+Wladimir
+
+--089e015384fe71514504f632174a
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
+ri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:41 AM, kjj <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bit=
+coin-devel@jerviss.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org</a>&gt;=
+</span> wrote:<br>
+<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
+left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">Matt Whit=
+lock wrote:<br>
+&gt; The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should b=
+e 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.<br>
+&gt;<br>
+</div>At first, I thought this was a second April Fool&#39;s joke, but then=
+ I<br>
+looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format. =C2=A0As far=
+<br>
+as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates<br>
+ISO 8601 by half a decade.<br>
+<br>
+Since we don&#39;t have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, i=
+f<br>
+we desired, adopt a sensible date format here. =C2=A0The cost to the<br>
+community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen<br>
+people needing to update scripts. =C2=A0It could even be as simple as one g=
+uy<br>
+running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g<br></blockquote><div><br></div>B=
+IPs were based on Python PIPs, PIPs use this same ordering but spell out th=
+e month like &#39;1-Oct-2000&#39;. This is slightly more readable than our =
+format.<br>
+<div><br><a href=3D"http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/">http://leg=
+acy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/</a><br><br></div><div>But to make it more=
+ confusing they have two different date conventions within the header (one =
+for the modified date, and one for the created date).<br>
+</div><div><br><div>Personally I&#39;d prefer to standardize on ISO 8601 (Y=
+YYY-MM-DD) dates as well.<br><br></div><div>Feel free to submit a pull agai=
+nst bips/bips that changes around the dates.<br></div><br>Wladimir<br></div=
+>
+</div><br></div></div>
+
+--089e015384fe71514504f632174a--
+
+