Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0268CBBE for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:26:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mailhub246.itcs.purdue.edu (mailhub246.itcs.purdue.edu [128.210.5.246]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4450215E for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:26:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.189] (c-50-165-111-123.hsd1.in.comcast.net [50.165.111.123]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailhub246.itcs.purdue.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/mta-auth.smtp.purdue.edu) with ESMTP id t5T0QNxf015235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:26:24 -0400 Message-ID: <5590900A.9080003@purdue.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:23:38 -0400 From: Andrew Lapp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info> <558D46EC.6050300@bitcoins.info> <558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info> <558FF307.9010606@bitcoins.info> <55901F7D.4000001@bitcoins.info> <559054D2.3050009@bitcoins.info> <55908DA0.5030507@bitcoins.info> In-Reply-To: <55908DA0.5030507@bitcoins.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 6.0.2.2308539 X-PerlMx-URL-Scanned: Yes X-PerlMx-Virus-Scanned: Yes X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:26:26 -0000 Your discussion is taking up a lot of room in my inbox and it doesn't seem like either side is getting through to the other. Perhaps you could create a document outlining all the failure modes possible due to the current system, the current systems security assumptions and possible solutions. Now it seems this is just a semantic debate and would probably be better solved with you writing a BIP and having that reviewed and critiqued. -Andrew Lapp On 06/28/2015 08:13 PM, Milly Bitcoin wrote: > The concern with that is that any FAQ will be developed by the same > small group that controls the github now so they will spin it in an > unrealistic way. You see the problem now with the Bitcoin wiki. > While the wiki has some valuable information, it also has a number of > incorrect and cult-like claims about how Bitcoin works. Tim Swanson > has made some good videos that describe some of the misinformation > that often gets repeated on the Wiki and other places. > > I had suggested the info on the Wiki be reevaluated piece-by-piece and > moved to Bitcoin.org but the developers didn't like that. Attempts to > edit the Wiki often leads to the articles being defaced by the > maintainers so that is a waste of time. > > Russ > > > > On 6/28/2015 5:00 PM, Adam Back wrote: >> I think we need a second mailing list: bitcoin-process for people to >> learn about bitcoin process. >> >> And someone to write a FAQ on it's sign up page so people interested >> could at least discuss from a starting point of understanding how and >> why it works the way it does! >> >> Adam >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev