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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>) id 1YHh3z-00039P-Vs
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 31 Jan 2015 23:02:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.50 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.50;
envelope-from=martin.habovstiak@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qg0-f50.google.com;
Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YHh3z-00016u-67
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 31 Jan 2015 23:02:51 +0000
Received: by mail-qg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id f51so43060316qge.9
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.104.229 with SMTP id a92mr25644981qgf.78.1422745365777;
Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.19.18 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2d8ahBo7PC9S5UteHXcVLFtXT7NXjtSS+2sLamQYum1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1422667849.25602.6.camel@TARDIS>
<CANEZrP2V0+M5B0P3T6cUqmSh-0FTP5_VgNcegwQTQQM7XMfMsA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALkkCJav7gQuDuPvWc_SOgVJGyfAorSWGHMvUjUTGZBJcGnNYQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2mv2yNtHN7KWFn6crHT_KhrW-GBB0EmK-BOrJQeEqMrg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2d8ahBo7PC9S5UteHXcVLFtXT7NXjtSS+2sLamQYum1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 01:02:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CALkkCJahDRBbCeKZYnL16VXugKkJ7vyZmzvfJOHkBbcqKfGcrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Habov=C5=A1tiak?= <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(martin.habovstiak[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
X-Headers-End: 1YHh3z-00016u-67
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 23:02:52 -0000
I didn't consider that, thank you for feedback! I will try to find
some time for implementing it. I'll write again then.
2015-01-31 23:50 GMT+02:00 Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>:
> I agree- standards should be descriptive ("here is how this thing I did
> works") and NOT proscriptive ("here's what I think will work, lets all try
> to do it this way.").
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
|
