From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZ4IY-0003oe-41 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:40:54 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.154 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.154; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk; Received: from outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.154]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VZ4IW-0003HW-Ot for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:40:54 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt6.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r9NJehYJ032405; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:40:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (petertodd.org [174.129.28.249]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r9NJedHu037695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:40:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:40:39 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Martin Sustrik Message-ID: <20131023194039.GB31497@petertodd.org> References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com> <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org> <52661DB7.7040805@250bpm.com> <52662AA1.5050509@250bpm.com> <52677CF7.9070609@250bpm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52677CF7.9070609@250bpm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 00a2fef4-3c1b-11e3-b802-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAEUF1YAAgsB AmUbWVReVF17XWE7 ag1VcwRfa1RMVxto VEFWR1pVCwQmQxV/ fEtKKlxydAJAcXs+ ZERlVngVXEQrdxAo FEpJFj4HN3phaTUc TRJQdwFJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDJDMi RgsDATQpEgUZRyh7 BT0eERYEBkEaP14p dRMoEUoCNAcVEQRa dwAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 174.129.28.249/587 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. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -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: petertodd.org] X-Headers-End: 1VZ4IW-0003HW-Ot Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:40:54 -0000 --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:38:31AM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote: > On 22/10/13 16:08, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > All that is good practice, but we should avoid adding burdensome > > process that might discourage BIP writing. > > > > Consider a distributed approach: if you feel a draft needs more > > sections or better language, submit a pull request yourself and help > > community-edit the document. >=20 > I would love to do so. >=20 > However, from what Peter Todd said above, my feeling was that spec is=20 > deliberately vague to force compatibility with the reference=20 > implementation rather than with a document. >=20 > While that kind of compatibility-via-obscurity won't probably work in a= =20 > long run, in short run it can prevent proliferation of implementations=20 > and thus give protocol more space and flexibility to evolve (I've done=20 > the same trick with ZeroMQ myself once). The reference implementation is the specification - the "specification" on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the real specification. If you don't already understand that and the nuance of that statement you should assume the protocol is fixed in stone and doesn't evolve at all; that statement is not quite true, but it's very close to the truth. I gotta get around to writing a "Developers" section for the FAQ explaining this stuff.... --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000007362b283ac07839aba795dbfb3c5c4e831d80df9cf3bea2d5 --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSaCY3AAoJEBmcgzuo5/CF9Z8IAIE1J/HyTm52ePhbw3H6V7yr 5iCZ/Cy963RHfVVrBfB3LJfqwT+HFfQ1N2a6+/rm+AvztWN5gq7Mr+78OkALshc+ GpvIMTB0RGHnPmdP07JYn5oU/gHlFbaD53qMkzvItRJ0+/khhmuZfRmYmlNmbs7j pua+h2LonurH8mxnHes/RJwESPEQDEnOTThFfgyRdZuef8buWnfCVOsc3tSn2qj/ ekCEZJesTZlyMY1Vx9zPGuFfcBy90mdJyyihB71RRBcCcR9K9+2bt6uM1trO5O7V Moa9PCdw8pjfQpwWX/tmvMpom53a2h5ouDVG55WF9UoME4iqPhKZKWCB1mib23I= =VjKm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f--