Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com; 
Message-ID: <4EBEABFC.2080802@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:25:16 -0500
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <BD206D96-C458-4DD7-92F6-32AE476C259A@ceptacle.com>	<CABsx9T3T7UZ-G9wsb_NDMBYpnnp9XBnjULmVVDgVXzEaUKn=5w@mail.gmail.com>	<200034A7-15F9-438F-A6B1-923A69348F55@ceptacle.com>	<4EBB3E68.6060402@gmail.com>	<CBFE8E7C-7A30-4450-A111-4EB413E068DF@ceptacle.com>	<4EBBCA0D.9060906@gmail.com>	<CANEZrP2RrkJ-6A8fwhNX_xKYScrDqBYM1VgcoZFNLqX8GaQotQ@mail.gmail.com>	<4EBEA880.7010608@gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0LERYWrHmxzZYvzNauVF09YjLkHbPB=uty9v5p3Wck1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0LERYWrHmxzZYvzNauVF09YjLkHbPB=uty9v5p3Wck1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig,
	op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
Precedence: list

Fair enough.  I'm not expecting anyone to just suddenly adopt BIP 0010 
just because I published it to the wiki.  I put it there to get feedback 
on what it might be missing, and maybe we can converge on a good 
preliminary solution.  Then update it as we start playing with it and 
find more features/fixes to add to it.

Right now, I have actually implemented BIP 0010 in my own client 
software (which is still a few weeks from even having an alpha version, 
but nontheless I'm actually implementing it). I'm going to use TxDPs in 
offline-wallet transactions, which is a nearly identical process (it's 
just a 1-of-1 transaction).  As such, I will be interested to test with 
some other client developers, whether they can easily use the TxDPs I 
produce.

I assume it doesn't bother you if I leave it the way it is, with the 
acknowledgment that I know no one is adopting it yet (except for 
myself).  It's informational, until we get a couple different clients, 
or at least test setup to play with it.

-Alan


On 11/12/2011 12:16 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> BIPs are either "standards track" (affects everyone, represents 
> consensus), "informational" (ie basically just summarizing the authors 
> viewpoints on things) or "process".
>
> My point is you can't have a credible standards track BIP until 
> something has been implemented end to end. I don't think it's a good 
> plan to design these things in isolation. You'll end up with bizarre 
> user experiences because of technical decisions taken months earlier 
> that are now hard to reverse. A working end to end implementation 
> gives you the confidence to say, yes, this is how it should work, 
> because here's the demo and you can see it works very well and the 
> code is clean.
>
> If your BIP is informational then no problems, but I don't think 
> there's much point in informational BIPs to be honest - it's easier to 
> just write an email or forum post summarizing your views on things. If 
> you find it a useful framework to write your thoughts in that's OK, 
> but don't expect implementors to follow what's written there just 
> because it's a BIP. It carries no more weight than any other document 
> would.
>
>