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
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>) id 1VXhH0-0006aN-Pl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:53:38 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of me.com
designates 17.172.220.239 as permitted sender)
client-ip=17.172.220.239; envelope-from=jeanpaulkogelman@me.com;
helo=st11p02mm-asmtp004.mac.com;
Received: from st11p02mm-asmtpout004.mac.com ([17.172.220.239]
helo=st11p02mm-asmtp004.mac.com)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VXhGz-0007dw-SC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:53:38 +0000
Received: from [10.0.1.20] ([216.19.182.8]) by st11p02mm-asmtp004.mac.com
(Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.08(7.0.4.27.7) 64bit
(built Aug
22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0MUX00LBPZS1XZB0@st11p02mm-asmtp004.mac.com>
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun,
20 Oct 2013 00:52:51 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure
engine=2.50.10432:5.10.8794,1.0.431,0.0.0000
definitions=2013-10-18_03:2013-10-18, 2013-10-18,
1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0
suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam
adjust=0
reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1308280000
definitions=main-1310190150
Content-type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_0211C741-5095-402D-AF16-A999DFDA29D0";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>
In-reply-to: <20131019235746.GA29032@savin>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:52:49 -0700
Message-id: <9EF588BB-14B5-495A-8253-82574DCB1A8A@me.com>
References: <CAKLmikPZhhTs2rf5h52KHLrWB38S=JgiOc+pCPx0FXvT7c_aow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTcTKAA0Xdzk3xZ-3sWwoPgPGmQdugG-0jjhPmntXitfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<38895569-E6E1-4576-9E36-B00B53F9D3CC@me.com>
<201310192229.19932.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgRu1j0w8RsiYutixEDxs1NYZVxQ7D7VRgDVi1b-wx+vUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<19909B49-0895-4130-99FB-9A116140CFE9@me.com>
<20131019235746.GA29032@savin>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: github.com]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1VXhGz-0007dw-SC
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A critique of bitcoin open
source community
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: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:53:38 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_0211C741-5095-402D-AF16-A999DFDA29D0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
>> Having it on the BIP page doesn't make it any more official, I agree, =
but it does increase its exposure and will hopefully spark some more =
discussion.
>=20
> Having it on the BIP page *does* make it more official, at least the =
way
> we've been using the BIP page, which is to filter out the proposals =
that
> haven't gotten much support at all. (or maybe are just controversial)
Interesting. The main reason I wrote my proposal was because the only =
proposal that came close to covering the same area was BIP 39, which at =
that time had 2 paragraphs of text (although admittedly did link to a =
text file off site where the draft was being developed). And currently =
there are 2 proposals that have numbers allocated but are empty (BIP 40 =
and 41) with no references to the development or discussion.
I appreciate the fact that acceptance of proposals on the BIP page are =
more strict, but it may be desirable to have the enforcement be more =
uniform. Also, BIP 38 is gaining more acceptance out in the community =
(many sites support the import of these keys and a growing number of =
paper wallet sites / coin / card vendors are offering it as an option), =
yet it's still missing from the BIP list, which seems to me a bit =
counter to the arguments given about community acceptance.
> FWIW I myself haven't pushed hard for getting an "official" BIP number
> for my draft NODE_BLOOM BIP, even though I've got support from most of
> the dev team on the pull-request:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2900 I'm probably at the point
> where I could get one assigned - Litecoin for instance has made that
> change - but really I just see that as a formality; that it's still a
> controversial idea is much more relevant.
> In any case I don't see any working code in your email, I'd suggest
> writing some. You're BIP would be much more likely to be accepted if =
you
> were more involved in wallet development.
Good point. I'm developing my own client (which has the code up and =
running, with unit tests), but I'm not ready to release it just yet =
until I've got all the client's alpha features working. Would putting =
contact information there so people can ask for the relevant code be =
sufficient until I have my client up on github?
jp
--Apple-Mail=_0211C741-5095-402D-AF16-A999DFDA29D0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=qdxi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_0211C741-5095-402D-AF16-A999DFDA29D0--
|
