Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WV6X0-0002ur-9k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:47:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.180; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WV6Wz-0000rw-ED for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:47:42 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 10so7272585lbg.25 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:47:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.61.199 with SMTP id s7mr20865144lbr.25.1396388854799; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:47:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgiqT9MARkSdTVCe37Kpkyj3-Uwe66a5U+HGnOtU6Qc7A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPg+sBh1_mYH4JNv1xTFnLsoC=qzmgi0QaLAyd7YeQ=wZQBDSQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140401200039.GA10403@tilt> <CAPg+sBgiqT9MARkSdTVCe37Kpkyj3-Uwe66a5U+HGnOtU6Qc7A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:47:34 -0700 Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTQbeeDwheRQPw=osOZ8LLQFsiteRQPdavE6iNnuGLtAA@mail.gmail.com> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -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 X-Headers-End: 1WV6Wz-0000rw-ED 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: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:47:42 -0000 On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote: > In case there are no further objections (excluding from people who > disagree with me), I'd like to request a BIP number for this. Any > number is fine, I guess, as long as it's finite. With ten people commenting on this proposal there are quite a few ways in which you could partition their views. Only one possible integer partitioning has everyone in the same partition, so consensus seems unlikely. But owing to a rather large bribe (or at least not less large than any other offered by competing parties) I hereby assign BIP 42 for this proposal.