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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <sustrik@250bpm.com>) id 1VZEx1-0008Rr-CD
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:03:23 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from chrocht.moloch.sk ([62.176.169.44] helo=mail.moloch.sk)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VZEx0-00049U-15
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:03:23 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ip66.bbxnet.sk [91.219.133.66])
by mail.moloch.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E78C318057B8;
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:03:14 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5268C632.3030005@250bpm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:03:14 +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: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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> <CAJHLa0NDus+Ou5go8b_OHvjYW8f7oxXbpxnHTG3dcvxGR49nxA@mail.gmail.com> <52677CF7.9070609@250bpm.com> <20131023194039.GB31497@petertodd.org> <52682C24.30700@250bpm.com> <20131023202731.GA31783@petertodd.org>
<CAPg+sBjv5We415atZocrZniKexFnKmUXB+bMC-tSG4ehQK9rwQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjv5We415atZocrZniKexFnKmUXB+bMC-tSG4ehQK9rwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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.
X-Headers-End: 1VZEx0-00049U-15
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:03:23 -0000
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
|
