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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WwVyJ-0004fL-Pt
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:25:11 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WwVyI-00021t-2X
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:25:11 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id eb12so5754806oac.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.63.205 with SMTP id i13mr19672502oes.8.1402921504603;
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0Euc1mPhRc9e41tU4zMDrWesvVyiBpAPq6M3m7K=aU=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKrJrGOBSiY5V59eko6g796j3wh9V9ZLjPbyHeS5=zyX6j3Wdw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0Euc1mPhRc9e41tU4zMDrWesvVyiBpAPq6M3m7K=aU=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:25:04 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: DDTjyilbtbCx3C10KhZfn-JdgDk
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1QJRiHq1W=KWzE8J2btidZoc9M+BjFAz656_RPMa96eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Lawrence Nahum <lawrence@greenaddress.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d89aee064404fbf31db8
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10 BODY: Message is 5% to 10% HTML obfuscation
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1WwVyI-00021t-2X
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol
backwards compatible proto buffer extension
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: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:25:11 -0000
--001a11c1d89aee064404fbf31db8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Oh yes the other thing we need to decide is how to extend BIP70.
Protocol buffers have an extend keyword. But I'm not sure it's what we
really want. IMHO a simpler solution is to have a single "living" version
of the protobuf (where? in a new git repo?) which has all the fields
defined by all the accepted BIPs in a single place. Otherwise the build
process and so on for wallet implementors would get unnecessarily
complicated for no real reason. Also if you wanted to pick a new number for
fields, you'd end up having to read *all* BIPs to figure out what is
available. Simpler seems better.
If we do that then I suggest just using field number 8 or 9 or whatever
rather than 1000. IMHO fields 1000+ should be for private extensions that
are unlikely to collide with other users.
--001a11c1d89aee064404fbf31db8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Oh yes the other thing we need =
to decide is how to extend BIP70.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Protocol buffers have an extend keyword. But I&=
#39;m not sure it's what we really want. IMHO a simpler solution is to =
have a single "living" version of the protobuf (where? in a new g=
it repo?) which has all the fields defined by all the accepted BIPs in a si=
ngle place. Otherwise the build process and so on for wallet implementors w=
ould get unnecessarily complicated for no real reason. Also if you wanted t=
o pick a new number for fields, you'd end up having to read <i>all</i>=
=C2=A0BIPs to figure out what is available. Simpler seems better.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">If we do th=
at then I suggest just using field number 8 or 9 or whatever rather than 10=
00. IMHO fields 1000+ should be for private extensions that are unlikely to=
collide with other users.</div>
</div>
--001a11c1d89aee064404fbf31db8--
|
