Message-ID: <52682C24.30700@250bpm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:05:56 +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: 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>
In-Reply-To: <20131023194039.GB31497@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal
Precedence: list

On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote:

> The reference implementation is the specification - the "specification"
> on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the real
> specification. If you don't already understand that and the nuance of
> that statement you should assume the protocol is fixed in stone and
> doesn't evolve at all; that statement is not quite true, but it's very
> close to the truth.

Does that imply that the notes are deliberately obscured to force 
everyone to check the source code?

Martin