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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
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
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for geutxos message
Precedence: list

--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 &quot;Querying multiple<br>

<div class=3D"">nodes and combining their answers can be a partial solution=
 to this&quot;<br>
</div>which is not very helpful advice. =C2=A0That&#39;s a partial answer t=
o my<br>
question #2 with zero response for question #3.<br></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>I&#39;m sorry you think it&#39;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 &quot;use only if you<br>
don&#39;t have a trusted solution&quot; and discussion of that choice is<br=
>
completely absent (question #1).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It&#39=
;s absent for the same reason it&#39;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&#39;t need stati=
ng.</div>
<div><br></div><div>How about adding the following sentence:</div><div><br>=
</div><div>&quot;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&quot;.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Would that make the BIP clearer?</div></div></div></div=
>

--089e0115f46e4775de04fe507fe3--