Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:56:54 -0400
From: "Peter D. Gray" <peter@coinkite.com>
To: Tomas Susanka <tomas.susanka@satoshilabs.com>
Message-ID: <20180621195654.GC99379@coinkite.com>
Reply-To: Peter Gray <peter@coinkite.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhGMxXatsyCAqeboQKH8ASSFAfiXzxyXR9UrNFnah5PPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CHCiA27GTRiVfkF1DoHdroJL1rQS77ocB42nWxIIhqi_fY3VbB3jsMQveRJOtsJiA4RaCAVe3VZmLZsXVYS3A5wVLNP2OgKQiHE0T27P2qc=@achow101.com>
	<21a616f5-7a17-35b9-85ea-f779f20a6a2d@satoshilabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <21a616f5-7a17-35b9-85ea-f779f20a6a2d@satoshilabs.com>
Organization: Coinkite Cryptobank (www.coinkite.com)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Cc: Achow101 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts
Precedence: list


--5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:32:07PM +0200, Tomas Susanka wrote:
=2E..
> First of all, let me thank you for all the hard work you and others have
> put into this.
>=20
> On 21.6.2018 02:39, Achow101 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > While I agree that the BIP itself should be revised to reflect these su=
ggestions, I fear that it may be too late. I know of a few other developers=
 who have implemented BIP 174 already but have not yet responded to this em=
ail.
>=20
> We do realize that this discussion should have happened earlier, however
> agreeing on a good standard should be the number one priority for all
> the parties involved.
>=20
> The fact that someone already implemented this is indeed unfortunate,
> but I don't think we should lower our demands on the standard just
> because of a bad timing.

We all want a "good" standard but we have that already, IMHO.

What you are really saying is you want a "better" standard, and I
would argue that's our enemy right now. It's just too easy to propose a
few tweaks, with "wouldn't it be better if..."=20

I feel strongly we are entering the "design by committee" territory with BI=
P174.

I have personally implemented this spec on an embedded micro, as
the signer and finalizer roles, and written multiple parsers for
it as well. There is nothing wrong with it, and it perfectly meets
my needs as a hardware wallet.

So, there is a good proposal already spec'ed and implemented by
multiple parties. Andrew has been very patiently shepherding the PR
for over six months already.

PSBT is something we need, and has been missing from the ecosystem
for a long time. Let's push this out and start talking about future
versions after we learn from this one.

---
Peter D. Gray  ||  Founder, Coinkite  ||  Twitter: @dochex  ||  GPG: A3A31B=
AD 5A2A5B10


--5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJbLAMGAAoJEKOjG61aKlsQjq4H/19cAOr2lL0Eaf/rNZn16jFd
iknUvbIJDXTwjw4SpxqlxPhOIrO7ZUn4aNTwAhDa8v4g+fHdOIEvSHqlikkRB50J
kS8mttQwLe1PRhWCU8FBQ/mxp14veRTmD9UsjNsgkn2O85dq1tV2jC/RG62S6t9C
iEJtzR90nSbOehp2xSBSGpc+qEeEi6udI2UBVksC3dSBUj9S65JUmsE5xa8ikpHM
hl7NBNrP0jDzkx/hYQvwEl5pVZVN2EUNP2WXwKhRyTzMCE8nTwPKF6+HM4n1xyUl
owbRHG7Ed2utMFM/K/D+4upKHRB4o7MSfmTQ9gxcHXZiFJZFNIYn0SY2J2qzWO4=
=fsQW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe--