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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1RPHKL-0003ND-9K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:25:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-vx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RPHKK-0006pJ-M4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:25:13 +0000
Received: by vcbfl11 with SMTP id fl11so2882777vcb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.36.131 with SMTP id q3mr27615874vdj.91.1321118707162;
Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-108-35.hsd1.md.comcast.net.
[76.111.108.35])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l1sm22516176vdi.0.2011.11.12.09.25.05
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EBEABFC.2080802@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:25:16 -0500
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <BD206D96-C458-4DD7-92F6-32AE476C259A@ceptacle.com> <CABsx9T3T7UZ-G9wsb_NDMBYpnnp9XBnjULmVVDgVXzEaUKn=5w@mail.gmail.com> <200034A7-15F9-438F-A6B1-923A69348F55@ceptacle.com> <4EBB3E68.6060402@gmail.com> <CBFE8E7C-7A30-4450-A111-4EB413E068DF@ceptacle.com> <4EBBCA0D.9060906@gmail.com> <CANEZrP2RrkJ-6A8fwhNX_xKYScrDqBYM1VgcoZFNLqX8GaQotQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EBEA880.7010608@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0LERYWrHmxzZYvzNauVF09YjLkHbPB=uty9v5p3Wck1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0LERYWrHmxzZYvzNauVF09YjLkHbPB=uty9v5p3Wck1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
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
(etotheipi[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
0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RPHKK-0006pJ-M4
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig,
op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
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, 12 Nov 2011 17:25:13 -0000
Fair enough. I'm not expecting anyone to just suddenly adopt BIP 0010
just because I published it to the wiki. I put it there to get feedback
on what it might be missing, and maybe we can converge on a good
preliminary solution. Then update it as we start playing with it and
find more features/fixes to add to it.
Right now, I have actually implemented BIP 0010 in my own client
software (which is still a few weeks from even having an alpha version,
but nontheless I'm actually implementing it). I'm going to use TxDPs in
offline-wallet transactions, which is a nearly identical process (it's
just a 1-of-1 transaction). As such, I will be interested to test with
some other client developers, whether they can easily use the TxDPs I
produce.
I assume it doesn't bother you if I leave it the way it is, with the
acknowledgment that I know no one is adopting it yet (except for
myself). It's informational, until we get a couple different clients,
or at least test setup to play with it.
-Alan
On 11/12/2011 12:16 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> BIPs are either "standards track" (affects everyone, represents
> consensus), "informational" (ie basically just summarizing the authors
> viewpoints on things) or "process".
>
> My point is you can't have a credible standards track BIP until
> something has been implemented end to end. I don't think it's a good
> plan to design these things in isolation. You'll end up with bizarre
> user experiences because of technical decisions taken months earlier
> that are now hard to reverse. A working end to end implementation
> gives you the confidence to say, yes, this is how it should work,
> because here's the demo and you can see it works very well and the
> code is clean.
>
> If your BIP is informational then no problems, but I don't think
> there's much point in informational BIPs to be honest - it's easier to
> just write an email or forum post summarizing your views on things. If
> you find it a useful framework to write your thoughts in that's OK,
> but don't expect implementors to follow what's written there just
> because it's a BIP. It carries no more weight than any other document
> would.
>
>
|
