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
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1VXgPA-0000md-Hh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:58:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.112 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.112; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148112.authsmtp.co.uk;
Received: from outmail148112.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.112])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VXgP9-0005Ut-9B for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:58:00 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt9.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r9JNvplf051999;
Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:57:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r9JNvkkS009979
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:57:49 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:57:46 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>
Message-ID: <20131019235746.GA29032@savin>
References: <CAKLmikPZhhTs2rf5h52KHLrWB38S=JgiOc+pCPx0FXvT7c_aow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTcTKAA0Xdzk3xZ-3sWwoPgPGmQdugG-0jjhPmntXitfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<38895569-E6E1-4576-9E36-B00B53F9D3CC@me.com>
<201310192229.19932.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgRu1j0w8RsiYutixEDxs1NYZVxQ7D7VRgDVi1b-wx+vUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<19909B49-0895-4130-99FB-9A116140CFE9@me.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19909B49-0895-4130-99FB-9A116140CFE9@me.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 4291598e-391a-11e3-b802-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAIUF1YAAgsB AmUbW1ReVVp7XGM7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
WVdMSlVNFUsqCGZ/ QEVFMRlyfgxBcTBx Y0diXj5fXk17cE91
F1NXHGxXeGZhPWMC AkhYdR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4iVjUm RgwDBCgiVUoLDy8y
MxchK1hUG14cNA0p NkY7Ul95OBgXDxBY Hl1caMDP
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: dashjr.org]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1VXgP9-0005Ut-9B
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A critique of bitcoin open
source community
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, 19 Oct 2013 23:58:00 -0000
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 04:35:13PM -0700, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> >> See BIP 1 for the process.. proposals go to this mailing list first.
> >=20
> > FWIW, he did post to the mailing list and he got an underwhelming respo=
nse:
> >=20
> > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=3D20ec1e35-305=
1-45d6-b449-e4a4d5c06dc8%40me.com&forum_name=3Dbitcoin-development
>=20
> Although I agree that the number of responses on the mailing list was min=
imal, they were overall positive. Mike voiced concerns about not having a d=
ate field to limit the rescan when importing, but other than that, most of =
the discussion was on bitcointalk. I've made a number of revisions, trying =
to incorporate the suggestions that were given. Obviously this doesn't mean=
that the draft is final (specifically the KDF's that can be used is still =
up for debate and having 29 undefined ID's means it's reasonably future pro=
of).
>=20
> Having it on the BIP page doesn't make it any more official, I agree, but=
it does increase its exposure and will hopefully spark some more discussio=
n.
Having it on the BIP page *does* make it more official, at least the way
we've been using the BIP page, which is to filter out the proposals that
haven't gotten much support at all. (or maybe are just controversial)
FWIW I myself haven't pushed hard for getting an "official" BIP number
for my draft NODE_BLOOM BIP, even though I've got support from most of
the dev team on the pull-request:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2900 I'm probably at the point
where I could get one assigned - Litecoin for instance has made that
change - but really I just see that as a formality; that it's still a
controversial idea is much more relevant.
In any case I don't see any working code in your email, I'd suggest
writing some. You're BIP would be much more likely to be accepted if you
were more involved in wallet development.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000ad5e0cbc9438203b9cf2dcae776774f59575e38fcefa802ed
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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==
=y+4E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q--
|
