diff options
author | Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> | 2014-04-04 09:01:48 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-04-04 07:01:55 +0000 |
commit | 250972e0314f65879d5ee4191563583732d175e7 (patch) | |
tree | e7af03af7dcc8b5b905a5213ea6753a941ba7f6b | |
parent | 431719d09a275c98ff3f0dbe6ef53db729389d41 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-250972e0314f65879d5ee4191563583732d175e7.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-250972e0314f65879d5ee4191563583732d175e7.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin
-rw-r--r-- | 90/a2c080476a57adb16ff684e7050ebd9069bc49 | 139 |
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"><<a href=3D"mailto:bit= +coin-devel@jerviss.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org</a>>= +</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> +> The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should b= +e 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.<br> +><br> +</div>At first, I thought this was a second April Fool'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'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 '1-Oct-2000'. 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'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-- + + |