Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YHcSR-0000Hq-FD
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:07:47 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f179.google.com; 
Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YHcSQ-0003g7-B0
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:07:47 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q59so32312037wes.10
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:07:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.7.103 with SMTP id i7mr24776575wja.53.1422727660319;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:07:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.9 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:07:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALkkCJav7gQuDuPvWc_SOgVJGyfAorSWGHMvUjUTGZBJcGnNYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1422667849.25602.6.camel@TARDIS>
	<CANEZrP2V0+M5B0P3T6cUqmSh-0FTP5_VgNcegwQTQQM7XMfMsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALkkCJav7gQuDuPvWc_SOgVJGyfAorSWGHMvUjUTGZBJcGnNYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:07:40 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c5u4cdQNn0i7IOkDCMxeN_mHnM4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2mv2yNtHN7KWFn6crHT_KhrW-GBB0EmK-BOrJQeEqMrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Habov=C5=A1tiak?= <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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: 1YHcSQ-0003g7-B0
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP: protocol for multisignature
	payments
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, 31 Jan 2015 18:07:47 -0000

--047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> I could look at implementing it someday, but now I'd like to receive
> feedback from community.
>

IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an implementation. For one, it
can show up issues in the design you didn't think of. For another,
implementation is a lot more work than speccing out a few protocol buffers
and high level procedures, so people who are going to write an
implementation probably won't follow your design unless they have a great
degree of confidence in it and some compelling reason to use it (e.g.
interop with other users).

--047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821
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"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">I could look at implementing it someday, but now=
 I&#39;d like to receive<br>
feedback from community.<br></blockquote><div></div></div><br></div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra">IMO it&#39;s better to pair a protocol spec with an imp=
lementation. For one, it can show up issues in the design you didn&#39;t th=
ink of. For another, implementation is a lot more work than speccing out a =
few protocol buffers and high level procedures, so people who are going to =
write an implementation probably won&#39;t follow your design unless they h=
ave a great degree of confidence in it and some compelling reason to use it=
 (e.g. interop with other users).</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>

--047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821--