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
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
|
Return-Path: <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAA1AE6E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:28:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com
[209.85.213.46])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 873EE19E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:27:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e185so102108043vkb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:27:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=gTG0IFYZr+3TFN8mWTVgvtJcj5NQ0YmDic/uJLuYkcU=;
b=y6EhSCsTR/Z3Sbt+FEA/S2ih+66WcHVHIEv3duJ6wu1BSzWY1ebfCsuoMXGDsZ/1Ms
WGyNhIOpEEAniHBiMNbnUAZ3xLpjnq4kPY/KJS9ozXNdAXoQ8yL9Cig47pbSK+/GrzmR
Uzb0FI6h9uzTiHZQyk4LLrTlDuRJFN5FdaakL3PUrdoqJ8xyCNAomGaCUAoi9CTj0fgx
DfAfcI9HJ0vTJ8bHKurvYdso682nbhuk1sWNYtyWuoiXc1C00oHvX9+DDuQTII/NMVF0
LabGE1ik1MnUb++f5y8dH+WyEO4ZzLpacs2KaRSrviVf9pOQiFrVBz14Pz6dpSvHd1Iu
fADQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=gTG0IFYZr+3TFN8mWTVgvtJcj5NQ0YmDic/uJLuYkcU=;
b=B8FDNSiKX9qSIocGRXvXCd6JK9Ud+gMSxPkEpS8DoB16sNGCrFeERaIWCvBUCs8yrw
vp0JOtgrHVMTdsc01LAI6bNx+uItCk1UuZxymBdbwAGUAozbId3CAnYY5DgcvWSoeB6z
Z33vDr60HNs9D2YMasRYg/iU285h/CR0oMgEVMQtyyHprmSNbP/ZL7CHhqRL+rISxVYe
4PYl+KiF+aJ9NI5D5RC04fV2u49x2KXa7hkykEm43EFfM4iU1elb8Ca7Uo44pDdrblyp
bcDLy03m5xP+zuV3xtpFuO1y9zJJTZK/+PGFxFpCUJL3IqmZV9PqXVGjnL4guIiOeuY8
lXfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSkGylDpvbBddA7rS3tl0NpEEemmyhZpVZw5AL8mZ300ei5qqfVTYf+KPX94/o+UKg6txMeYSmrZM3EqA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.9.72 with SMTP id 69mr18648360vkj.126.1454434078591; Tue,
02 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.96.210 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGcHOzzde_T3xJwJL2Ehyw7U1FgxEEBJR30VBLdSZMj=W49hSg@mail.gmail.com>
<201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGcHOzw88za1m6uJY9MBO2X=3psNk667FyBOHz2XCPO3ABbcRw@mail.gmail.com>
<201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGcHOzwec-eoG-uZzXY2pb=VzQ98EvnijvxrcsrFYgKi2HQ_uw@mail.gmail.com>
<56A79C86.1030902@gmail.com>
<CAGcHOzybd3fgmdZwdMjq36O4-dXUMcdpdV0+jovTSiAtzFdGUg@mail.gmail.com>
<20160202170356.GC18604@muck>
<CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGcHOzyScNoLT=rHY0BMZvCowYG_WyQ8u-xu=4vHE8xWHraAOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Toby Padilla <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:29:03 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment
Protocol
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:28:00 -0000
--001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki
The editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it
with his new proposed BIP :)
I really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned
the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. There was deep vetting,
lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his personal opinions to
accept the BIP.
That being said...
The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no idea
if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally
understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when people
who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against
you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very
centralized and discouraging.
I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP
commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing list
and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the
> > > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust
> value,
> > > it makes no sense to object to it.
> >
> > I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard
> > requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP
> > document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby
> > wallet vendors to implement it.
> >
> > While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature
> > itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression
> > that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.
>
> I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about
> this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself,
> in the hope you take the concerns into account.
>
> These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a
> BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally
> dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.
>
> Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement
> it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
--001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74<div><br=
></div><div><a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074=
.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/b=
ip-0074.mediawiki</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>The editor did not agree=
with it, and I suspect would comment against it with his new proposed BIP =
:)</div><div><br></div><div>I really appreciated that despite his vehement =
disagreement, he assigned the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. =
There was deep vetting, lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his=
personal opinions to accept the BIP.</div><div><br></div><div>That being s=
aid...</div><div><br></div><div>The mailing list is a problem. I'm stil=
l on moderation only. I have no idea if this message will go through and wh=
en it will go through. I totally understand the desire to keep the conversa=
tion level high, but when people who *are* whitelisted can quickly post mul=
tiple heated arguments against you (publicly) and you can't respond, th=
en that starts to look very centralized and discouraging.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP=
commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing lis=
t and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.</div></div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pie=
ter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com"=
target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr">On Feb 2, 2016 18:0=
4, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev=
wrote:<br>
> > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's u=
se of the<br>
> > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than du=
st value,<br>
> > it makes no sense to object to it.<br>
><br>
> I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard<br=
>
> requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your =
BIP<br>
> document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobb=
y<br>
> wallet vendors to implement it.<br>
><br>
> While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the f=
eature<br>
> itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impre=
ssion<br>
> that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.</p>
</span><p dir=3D"ltr">I'll go further: whatever people have commented h=
ere and elsewhere about this feature (myself included) are personal opinion=
s on the feature itself, in the hope you take the concerns into account.</p=
>
<p dir=3D"ltr">These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be=
accepted as a BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even i=
f he personally dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.<=
/p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets hav=
e to implement it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintaine=
rs.</p><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf--
|
