Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <nanotube@gmail.com>) id 1R7Bh6-0000mc-Tn
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:45:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.182; envelope-from=nanotube@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qy0-f182.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1R7Bh6-00078m-7M
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:45:56 +0000
Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4so4574004qyk.13
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.71.227 with SMTP id i35mr3069507qcj.155.1316807150685;
	Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.219.129 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0y601kjJ7ToczwhcQUoh3NZbuPa+iWwtm6-DZxZSRNPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201109182104.45994.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAL0fb61B6bqGMhWtCgvy0xwfHQ_nvmhbb9uLJQWx3biENhVJNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<21269.192.251.226.206.1316448084.squirrel@lavabit.com>
	<CABsx9T0y601kjJ7ToczwhcQUoh3NZbuPa+iWwtm6-DZxZSRNPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:45:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHY2ayDxO035Hz0iSQvO7mj4=ryqQ+UFxy6Utv=T7nwYiuYS5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel F <nanotube@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
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
	(nanotube[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
	0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R7Bh6-00078m-7M
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Enhancement Proposals (BEPS)
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, 23 Sep 2011 19:45:57 -0000

> Does anybody besides me think maybe we should name them something
> other than "BEP" ?
>
> I'm worried we'll regret it in two years when a google for "BEP003"
> takes you to the BitTorrent EPs instead of the BitCoin EPs.

this is an excellent "painting the bikeshed" question, so i cannot
resist participation :)

imo, anyone who has any business looking at the beps (which would
generally be technically-minded people), will be smart enough to
google for "bitcoin bep003" to find what he's looking for. so i don't
see an issue, whatever acronym we end up using.