Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1YHfvp-0000Hg-Vr
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 21:50:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.160.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yk0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YHfvp-0007tr-4A
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 21:50:21 +0000
Received: by mail-yk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 9so19533349ykp.6
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 13:50:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.173.12 with SMTP id p12mr6534558ykd.41.1422741015478;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 13:50:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.130.210 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 13:50:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2mv2yNtHN7KWFn6crHT_KhrW-GBB0EmK-BOrJQeEqMrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1422667849.25602.6.camel@TARDIS>
	<CANEZrP2V0+M5B0P3T6cUqmSh-0FTP5_VgNcegwQTQQM7XMfMsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALkkCJav7gQuDuPvWc_SOgVJGyfAorSWGHMvUjUTGZBJcGnNYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2mv2yNtHN7KWFn6crHT_KhrW-GBB0EmK-BOrJQeEqMrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:50:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2d8ahBo7PC9S5UteHXcVLFtXT7NXjtSS+2sLamQYum1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a6f40d5c90b050df9b409
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YHfvp-0007tr-4A
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP: protocol for multisignature
	payments
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: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 21:50:22 -0000

--001a113a6f40d5c90b050df9b409
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I agree- standards should be descriptive ("here is how this thing I did
works") and NOT proscriptive ("here's what I think will work, lets all try
to do it this way.").


On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> I could look at implementing it someday, but now I'd like to receive
>> feedback from community.
>>
>
> IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an implementation.
>

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a113a6f40d5c90b050df9b409
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I agree- standards should be descriptive (&quot;here is ho=
w this thing I did works&quot;) and NOT proscriptive (&quot;here&#39;s what=
 I think will work, lets all try to do it this way.&quot;).<div><br></div><=
div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat,=
 Jan 31, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<=
br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D""><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x">I could look at implementing it someday, but now I&#39;d like to receive=
<br>
feedback from community.<br></blockquote><div></div></div><br></div></span>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">IMO it&#39;s better to pair a protocol spec with=
 an implementation.=A0</div></div></blockquote><div>=A0</div></div>-- <br><=
div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>

--001a113a6f40d5c90b050df9b409--