Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.112 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.112; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148112.authsmtp.co.uk; 
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:57:46 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>
Message-ID: <20131019235746.GA29032@savin>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19909B49-0895-4130-99FB-9A116140CFE9@me.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A critique of bitcoin open
	source	community
Precedence: list


--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 04:35:13PM -0700, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> >> See BIP 1 for the process.. proposals go to this mailing list first.
> >=20
> > FWIW, he did post to the mailing list and he got an underwhelming respo=
nse:
> >=20
> > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=3D20ec1e35-305=
1-45d6-b449-e4a4d5c06dc8%40me.com&forum_name=3Dbitcoin-development
>=20
> Although I agree that the number of responses on the mailing list was min=
imal, they were overall positive. Mike voiced concerns about not having a d=
ate field to limit the rescan when importing, but other than that, most of =
the discussion was on bitcointalk. I've made a number of revisions, trying =
to incorporate the suggestions that were given. Obviously this doesn't mean=
 that the draft is final (specifically the KDF's that can be used is still =
up for debate and having 29 undefined ID's means it's reasonably future pro=
of).
>=20
> 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 discussio=
n.

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)

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.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000ad5e0cbc9438203b9cf2dcae776774f59575e38fcefa802ed

--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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==
=y+4E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q--