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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1VXfiW-0007aP-Sj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:13:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.42; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VXfiV-0003le-Lr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:13:56 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ea20so447962lab.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.29.201 with SMTP id m9mr7702572lah.6.1382224428908; Sat,
19 Oct 2013 16:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.72 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:13:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSBHC2XMdaPuqb1PEqoqzM_Jc-taDtUCnRak-n96dzGhA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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: me.com]
-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: 1VXfiV-0003le-Lr
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Root key encoding / BIP process Was: 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 23:13:57 -0000
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman
<jeanpaulkogelman@me.com> wrote:
> I have a question regarding this part. I wrote a BIP for base 58 encoding=
/ encryption of BIP 32 root keys. The BIP page states that we shouldn't ad=
d to this list ourselves, but should contact you for a BIP number. I have c=
ontacted you a couple times on bitcointalk for a BIP number, but haven't re=
ceived a response (or do those requests explicitly have to go to your email=
address)?
>
> Proposal in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D258678.0
I responded to you in PM on July 19, 2013, 05:57:15 PM.
Then I followed up with a technical review after I didn't see much
other technical review happening:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D258678.msg3128364#msg3128364
Which you responded to, correcting a few of my misunderstandings and
offering to make changes to the specification to make it more clear
and to correct a few of the limitations I pointed out.
At that point I put aside further action on your proposal waiting for
you to make those updates.
The reason to go through a serialization point for BIP numbers is to
avoid assigning them to things to people's pet ideas that haven't been
reviewed by or represent any identifiable part of the Bitcoin
community. (After all: You're free to publish any specs at all on your
own without a BIP. BIPs are not "official" but they should be stronger
than "some guy says this" if they are to mean anything). I don't
generally see my role in this process as acting as an approver, but
rather just someone recognizing approval that already exists.
Generally I try not to assign numbers to things before I see evidence
of discussion which I can reasonably expect to result in an "community
outcome". In some cases this means that I'll take up the role of
going through and being a second set of eyes on the document myself
(directly contributing to creating some community approval), as I did
in this case.
On October 2nd, you followed up with
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D258678.msg3287415#msg3287415
indicating that you'd made the changes addressing my points.
My apologies, I missed this completely as I not working on Bitcoin
things pretty much at all during 09/26 to 10/13 due to other
obligations. Thanks for your patience. Following up here was
absolutely the right thing to do if I'm dropping the ball.
Pieter, do you have any opinions to offer on this? (Also, generally
to the list. I'm singling out Pieter only because just asking "anyone"
to comment tends to be less effective.)
|
