1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <sustrik@250bpm.com>) id 1VYt1d-0007P3-3n
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:38:41 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from chrocht.moloch.sk ([62.176.169.44] helo=mail.moloch.sk)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VYt1b-0003N6-4e
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:38:40 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ip66.bbxnet.sk [91.219.133.66])
by mail.moloch.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E69321800B67;
Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:38:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <52677CF7.9070609@250bpm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:38:31 +0200
From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com> <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org> <52661DB7.7040805@250bpm.com> <FAE2A544-9295-4087-96DE-D4602D109CBD@me.com> <CAAS2fgS2f=gYRSr1n2DzK7CUH3xG3J2JMnDreCKBoCcJcpGLxg@mail.gmail.com> <52662AA1.5050509@250bpm.com>
<CAJHLa0NDus+Ou5go8b_OHvjYW8f7oxXbpxnHTG3dcvxGR49nxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NDus+Ou5go8b_OHvjYW8f7oxXbpxnHTG3dcvxGR49nxA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1VYt1b-0003N6-4e
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal
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: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:38:41 -0000
On 22/10/13 16:08, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> All that is good practice, but we should avoid adding burdensome
> process that might discourage BIP writing.
>
> Consider a distributed approach: if you feel a draft needs more
> sections or better language, submit a pull request yourself and help
> community-edit the document.
I would love to do so.
However, from what Peter Todd said above, my feeling was that spec is
deliberately vague to force compatibility with the reference
implementation rather than with a document.
While that kind of compatibility-via-obscurity won't probably work in a
long run, in short run it can prevent proliferation of implementations
and thus give protocol more space and flexibility to evolve (I've done
the same trick with ZeroMQ myself once).
Anyway, if my impression was wrong I am happy to give it a try.
Martin
|
