MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CA+1nnrmsU5kLxuW=GJSmy8C7s6F3EM8sgFYoXDg1iM-eD2qzsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+1nnrmZAdzBn-FMBVMGtp4n7bbG8W0VEGvi1WopS-M49zBXpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201605260353.06939.luke@dashjr.org>
	<20160705174636.GA24068@fedora-21-dvm>
	<201607060122.20593.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAH+Axy5A-_oDoPjabyzzAF8kVq9DsFwonEYPp9EU+Hf_BP1-DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+1nnrmsU5kLxuW=GJSmy8C7s6F3EM8sgFYoXDg1iM-eD2qzsg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:53:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJys93VTFuGA3ydcuqxcx_O6r0D7715Kgfyc+SP4P8J9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114177f81db481053917e3e8
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Number Request: Open Asset
Precedence: list

--001a114177f81db481053917e3e8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> As said, Open Asset is not a draft proposal and is already used in the
wild since 2014. We can't easily modify the protocol by now for improving
it.

You can, however, provide a new OA2.0 protocol that improves upon these
issues, and assure that upgraded wallets maintain support for both
versions.

It seems like OA's stance has *always *been to focus on integration, rather
than fixing the core protocol and then, by virtue of having the largest
integration, saying things like "it's too late to turn back now".    Colu
and Chromaway/EPOBC also have stuff "in the wild".

I would love to see an RFC-style standard "multiple-colored-coin-protocol"
written by reps from all of the major protocols and that meta-merges the
features of these implementations - in collaboration with feedback from
core developers that understand the direction the protocol will be taking
and the issues to avoid.   HTTP/TCP/IP MCCP/BTC

As it stands, investors have to install multiple wallets to deal with these
varying implementations.   Merging them into one "meta-specification"
fairly soon might be in the best interests of the community and of future
shareholders.

--001a114177f81db481053917e3e8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>&gt; As said, Open Asset is not a=
 draft proposal and is already used in the=20
wild since 2014. We can&#39;t easily modify the protocol by now for=20
improving it.<br><br></div>You can, however, provide a new OA2.0 protocol t=
hat improves upon these issues, and assure that upgraded wallets maintain s=
upport for both versions.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br><br></div>It seems like OA&#39;s =
stance has <i>always </i>been to focus on integration, rather than fixing t=
he core protocol and then, by virtue of having the largest integration, say=
ing things like &quot;it&#39;s too late to turn back now&quot;.=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 Colu=C2=A0 and Chromaway/EPOBC also have stuff &quot;in the wild&quo=
t;.<br></div><br></div>I would love to see an RFC-style standard &quot;mult=
iple-colored-coin-protocol&quot; written by reps from all of the major prot=
ocols and that meta-merges the features of these implementations - in colla=
boration with feedback from core developers that understand the direction t=
he protocol will be taking and the issues to avoid.=C2=A0=C2=A0 HTTP/TCP/IP=
 MCCP/BTC<br><br>As it stands, investors have to install multiple wallets t=
o deal with these varying implementations.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Merging them into on=
e &quot;meta-specification&quot; fairly soon might be in the best interests=
 of the community and of future=20
shareholders.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div>=
<br><div><div><div><br><br><br></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a114177f81db481053917e3e8--