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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1X7QND-0001Zp-Gh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X7QNC-0004GC-IF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:59 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id g18so1043243oah.20
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.97.230 with SMTP id ed6mr21015755oeb.81.1405521593068;
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NcFcRhczf9WWGj+4fYBdYCUBb7Zm__Y5+qhprXL21wUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP1t3Pz3FOgxkxsj+sSgyQhPxfUTdCGXTC7=yxeZkGt-DQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NhZ=RuUMts19EUhY6C1+dy1yaje3Hb5Lfm+AqjRRL5uw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP20E5R3D+Em4hordpSpe-e88iyHwyq=WdffsTCpTm+RVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NcFcRhczf9WWGj+4fYBdYCUBb7Zm__Y5+qhprXL21wUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:39:53 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AtYkZzEFS3wzWXQniGyrGwSMx_c
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1r8eGcMRA6oQnsBC9C8grW+Rpzx2JyFTq92ce1eV53pQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1X7QNC-0004GC-IF
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for geutxos message
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, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:59 -0000
--089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On the specific issue I raised, the BIP only says "Querying multiple
> nodes and combining their answers can be a partial solution to this"
> which is not very helpful advice. That's a partial answer to my
> question #2 with zero response for question #3.
>
I'm sorry you think it's unhelpful. It is nonetheless the best that can be
done within the constraints of the current Bitcoin protocol.
> This sort of thing really needs a warning label like "use only if you
> don't have a trusted solution" and discussion of that choice is
> completely absent (question #1).
>
It's absent for the same reason it's absent for all the other protocol
BIPs: the ability to use a trusted third party is always present and a
possible answer for any problem in Bitcoin. So I figured it didn't need
stating.
How about adding the following sentence:
"If the above constraints are insufficient for your use case, you can
alternatively query a block explorer or other trusted third party to obtain
the same information".
Would that make the BIP clearer?
--089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">On the specific issue I raised, the BIP only say=
s "Querying multiple<br>
<div class=3D"">nodes and combining their answers can be a partial solution=
to this"<br>
</div>which is not very helpful advice. =C2=A0That's a partial answer t=
o my<br>
question #2 with zero response for question #3.<br></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>I'm sorry you think it's unhelpful. It is nonetheless the =
best that can be done within the constraints of the current Bitcoin protoco=
l.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This sort of thing really n=
eeds a warning label like "use only if you<br>
don't have a trusted solution" and discussion of that choice is<br=
>
completely absent (question #1).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It'=
;s absent for the same reason it's absent for all the other protocol BI=
Ps: the ability to use a trusted third party is always present and a possib=
le answer for any problem in Bitcoin. So I figured it didn't need stati=
ng.</div>
<div><br></div><div>How about adding the following sentence:</div><div><br>=
</div><div>"If the above constraints are insufficient for your use cas=
e, you can alternatively query a block explorer or other trusted third part=
y to obtain the same information".</div>
<div><br></div><div>Would that make the BIP clearer?</div></div></div></div=
>
--089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3--
|
