1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1Xfn7b-000065-71
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:49:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.182; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xfn7a-00049c-5K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:49:55 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id rp18so3125660iec.27
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.148.74 with SMTP id kf10mr19831869icc.9.1413712188857;
Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.141.112 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2753630.UjohjSx8jx@1337h4x0r>
References: <CA+s+GJCAWXgpzyQnAar6ecKdcci+tdR8yJjCOUpB=xmj-ytZZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2753630.UjohjSx8jx@1337h4x0r>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 11:49:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJB+RfqYNH+c99uLgFtJPEigW378A62bqYfZm2A_3o9c3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: xor@freenetproject.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1Xfn7a-00049c-5K
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process
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: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:49:55 -0000
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:17 AM, xor <xor@freenetproject.org> wrote:
> So as a random stranger to the project, I would vote against that if I was
> allowed to. There really should be *more* discussion here, and splitting the
> list up won't help with that.
The problem is not one of traffic, but of confusion of concerns, and of focus.
That specific questions about Bitcoin Core are being asked, for
example about watch-only functionality, in the same list where changes
to the entire system (BIPs) should be decided on doesn't make sense.
This has in practice caused some developers of alternative clients to
not subscribe to this list, even though they *should* follow BIP
discussion otherwise it makes no sense to have a process in the first
place.
Wladimir
|
