1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <sustrik@250bpm.com>) id 1VYXCw-00067G-C9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:20:54 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from chrocht.moloch.sk ([62.176.169.44] helo=mail.moloch.sk)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VYXCs-0004RQ-Sh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:20:54 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ip66.bbxnet.sk [91.219.133.66])
by mail.moloch.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81F481801A61;
Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:20:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5266355C.6090303@250bpm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:20:44 +0200
From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com> <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org> <52661DB7.7040805@250bpm.com> <FAE2A544-9295-4087-96DE-D4602D109CBD@me.com> <CAAS2fgS2f=gYRSr1n2DzK7CUH3xG3J2JMnDreCKBoCcJcpGLxg@mail.gmail.com> <52662AA1.5050509@250bpm.com>
<CAAS2fgQ4jKxPY+TSBfYh2_nyBB2e+ONy=+pYCxELOw0gFCEuBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQ4jKxPY+TSBfYh2_nyBB2e+ONy=+pYCxELOw0gFCEuBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
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: 250bpm.com]
X-Headers-End: 1VYXCs-0004RQ-Sh
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:20:54 -0000
On 22/10/13 09:56, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com> wrote:
>> There's also Security Considerations part in
>> every RFC that is pretty relevant for Bitcoin.
>
> Which would say something interesting like "If the bitcoin network
> implements inconsistent behavior in the consensus critical parts of
> the protocol the world ends. As such, conformance or _non_-conformance
> with this specification (in particular, sections 4. 5. and 6.) may be
> required for security."
In fact, yes.
In the end it boils down to saying something like: "Bitcoin is a unique
global distributed application and thus all implementations MUST support
the version of the protocol currently in use, irrespective of whether it
have been documented and/or published. This RFC is meant only for
informational purposes and is a snapshot of the protocol as to Oct 22nd
2013."
That being said, I understand the idea of not publishing the spec so
that everyone is forced to work with live data.
> A Bitcoin protocol RFC would be a great place to exercise RFC 6919
> keywords. ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919 )
Heh. Haven't seen that one.
Martin
|
