Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZIKC-0002YN-3q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:39:32 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.182; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wi0-f182.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VZIKB-00008Y-2o for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:39:32 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ez12so2286552wid.9 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:39:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=raac5XfdKl1KFjn+14ddACXbO/xgXys9X7Kv/sI97hs=; b=iGMsTw0b7EjNPk5k61xvcZ+Plp2teB7bZLHs1g/FbcZq6BpKrPUiq5rD2EJwoeAd3A vRajVRQt/qdK/AsyOQ18Vr5zV+JQ0ckADa9srUl2bp0neH0i3DFaCccrF//pVsFo3s8H Ux0KOvDCrBQiP1uPXNR61NChWUObWYnuOjzsQDnuVnBBjH1mORJu2Ag2I846sQvXSBKU xcvFmG++cuxGJcdzPE0WRQWypfBe9GOyMZIe69SefNAJL3zySf2Vrj2RS3w0cCbxJqwd oWyMVBQWPyHSfRC8h3QOdadH7+VOU/zg2OAXs1/muzh1R7a+yRfwtBpiC7OekNhBXjZH klBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlSBLTNQsSS5Gnx8eE5w6NzQm0mdpTlpL6sf6+fq+FHrwj8D9jVilwwXi9Oy6cY719CSAWu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.20.202 with SMTP id p10mr1973177wje.39.1382611164861; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.164.164 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:39:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5268C632.3030005@250bpm.com> References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com> <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org> <52661DB7.7040805@250bpm.com> <52662AA1.5050509@250bpm.com> <52677CF7.9070609@250bpm.com> <20131023194039.GB31497@petertodd.org> <52682C24.30700@250bpm.com> <20131023202731.GA31783@petertodd.org> <5268C632.3030005@250bpm.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:39:24 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Martin Sustrik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: doubleclick.net] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -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: 1VZIKB-00008Y-2o Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:39:32 -0000 Yes. I had pointed people in IRC to Knuth's literate programming, as an example of how we might document bitcoin. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote: > On 23/10/13 23:07, Pieter Wuille wrote: > >> In short, >> consistency is more important than correctness. > > That's a nice and concise way to put it and any potential protocol > documentation should start with a statement like that. > >> However, I do not think that making it hard to find information about >> the details of the system is the way to go. Alternate implementations >> are likely inevitable, and in the long run probably a win for the >> ecosystem. If effort is put into accurately describing the rules, it >> should indeed carry a strong notice about it being descriptive rather >> than normative. > > One interesting question is whather alternative implementations are more > likely to get it wrong because the protocol description is wrong or > because the authors misunderstood the reference implementation source code. > > Extensive documentation of the source code, a la Knuth's literate > programming, may be some kind of a middle ground. > >> If someone is willing to work on that, I am (and likely many people in >> #bitcoin-dev are) available for any questions about the protocol and >> its semantics. > > Ok. Several people expressed an interest in the topic, so I'll give it a > try and see how it fares. > > Martin > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Jeff Garzik Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/