diff options
| author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2016-06-23 08:10:00 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2016-06-23 12:10:05 +0000 |
| commit | 1a971bb92b7d4af4477c1ba02b8a059f013b8ec1 (patch) | |
| tree | 7cce0225b9af13a7f542ca9be4305ace41d2622f /6d | |
| parent | 938c60cda354703392eff3b0030ea836208c7f35 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-1a971bb92b7d4af4477c1ba02b8a059f013b8ec1.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-1a971bb92b7d4af4477c1ba02b8a059f013b8ec1.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
Diffstat (limited to '6d')
| -rw-r--r-- | 6d/805e5b0b5f7b6dc612206fd536e266a67b0fd6 | 143 |
1 files changed, 143 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/6d/805e5b0b5f7b6dc612206fd536e266a67b0fd6 b/6d/805e5b0b5f7b6dc612206fd536e266a67b0fd6 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c543fd469 --- /dev/null +++ b/6d/805e5b0b5f7b6dc612206fd536e266a67b0fd6 @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE8A7898 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:10:05 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from outmail148093.authsmtp.net (outmail148093.authsmtp.net + [62.13.148.93]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E161A2 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:10:04 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) + by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5NCA3T1008685; + Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:10:03 +0100 (BST) +Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com + [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) + by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5NCA1Bf005264 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); + Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:10:02 +0100 (BST) +Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 283C84011D; + Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:07:57 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) + id 6F8EC20217; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:10:00 -0400 (EDT) +Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:10:00 -0400 +From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +Message-ID: <20160623121000.GA20073@fedora-21-dvm> +References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com> + <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> + <CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com> + <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm> + <CAPg+sBg90FxbEy1smp9mn+djF-N6PdUprtQ7r_kgvKCGbTHndQ@mail.gmail.com> + <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm> + <CAPg+sBiqh80Q4Dfm0y6aEX+gHrcHZMq3tckejx8KDCPb-ikkOg@mail.gmail.com> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiqh80Q4Dfm0y6aEX+gHrcHZMq3tckejx8KDCPb-ikkOg@mail.gmail.com> +User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) +X-Server-Quench: 6a1b66c5-393b-11e6-829e-00151795d556 +X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: + http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse +X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR + aQdMdAEUEkAaAgsB AmAbWldeUV17WWE7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq + T0pMXVMcUQAWcm0A dEgeUhxwcQEIeXxw ZUUsWCFaDkJ8JkNg + QUdXR3AHZDJmdWgd WRVFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk + FAgyOXU9MCtqYAlL TwdFKFUITA4TBDkk QAsPEX0FPHVNSjUv + Iho9K1kaBw4NNQ0Y EGNpAQpHa3c8 +X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 +X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) +X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 +X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own + anti-virus system. +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070 +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:10:06 -0000 + + +--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: +> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: +> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: +> > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publicat= +ion +> > platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by +> > accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them. +>=20 +> We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that +> repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on +> proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github +> is a historical artifact. + +That's simply not how the rest of the community perceives bips, and until we +move them elsewhere that's not going to change. + +No matter how much we scream that we don't have authority, the fact of the +matter is the bips are located under the github.com/bitcoin namespace, and = +we +do have editorial control over them. + +> > I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in = +the bips +> > repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing el= +sewhere. +>=20 +> Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's +> more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there +> community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference +> implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons +> to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a +> BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend +> against its usage. + +Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the +question now is what editorial policies should we exert? + +My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on +ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't tro= +ll +and call that "advocating censorship" + +--=20 +https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org + +--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" +Content-Description: Digital signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXa9GVAAoJEGOZARBE6K+ySJEH+wdpHj+40LwLuYlVsAKJmzfo +DBMBS4DYQeSp5LPk2I7L7NQM7fRUYW7b39LC7CvMBBJMBo5eT07CoqXO0J0CvSns +mZWmWtOTWEAUJchGpzPz1mnF+EQ5nndqfit3VnY4WzlQvoNHT305A5ehAI8LTmN4 +8wMZkh/8OAYBqXoZ+hP3E2jHyFAObWfwrUnnV4ixExcWLkNxxXFJNLzM2KVgBL9G +XXs8BQV6NNAioDRIjd+TFOxCh+0QMs9I4xQHk78gdS4IVWsokwOI5zxesygZzANc +T0TcIKYjBX7WbgcKoVF9P3Qs9izNhV6h2FQTCcz/oCqQ1nJWl8gg53SXapbP5T8= +=AGF/ +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c-- + |