Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
	designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=173.246.101.161;
	envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; 
References: <1327704664.31621.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<201201271800.31819.luke@dashjr.org>
	<05d62c81-ef50-4c43-8fa5-65592c8f54a4@email.android.com>
	<201201272045.10787.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <201201272045.10787.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
From: bitcoin-list@bluematt.me
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:12:11 -0500
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <759be3f8-ca4c-4e36-aac1-b3894dda450d@email.android.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 0020: URI Scheme
Precedence: list


Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

>On Friday, January 27, 2012 7:36:31 PM bitcoin-list@bluematt.me wrote:
>> It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of
>Bitcoin-Qt for
>> drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in
>>
>https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d766=
09
>> d23cc858.
>
>It's been implemented in many clients for nearly all 2011.
>Bitcoin-Qt is just behind the pace. Not relevant.
>
>> However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of
>extraneous crap
>> in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since
>it was
>> explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed.
>
>You mean 3 months *after* the spec had a consensus and multiple=20
>implementations.
I'm really not gonna reopen this debate.  You made a poll that was worded=
 in the most biased way I could think of and still lost.  The multiple im=
plementations were written but you and I know of no sites that actually h=
ad links to your version.