Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WWUPk-0008B8-R3
	for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:29:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f170.google.com; 
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WWUPk-0004bo-0e
	for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:29:56 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id s7so3440331lbd.15
	for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.143.99 with SMTP id sd3mr12878903lbb.11.1396718989356;
	Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:29:49 -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: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:29:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRyo1GqBNyQOHOUdm8h3dx7N=0sJJunr1yktx1VPRu3Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
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
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
	[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?209.85.217.170>]
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-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
	1.5 SF_NO_SPF_SPAM         SF_NO_SPF_SPAM
X-Headers-End: 1WWUPk-0004bo-0e
Cc: Bitcoin Development <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: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:29:57 -0000

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:41 PM, kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org> wrote:
> 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.

In my opinion you can have whatever style you want on the BIPs, so
long as you pledge to slay all who come and complain about the new
style.