From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B6EC23 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:06:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:44 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.89]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD021334 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:06:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D59053C58 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp65.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (relay.iad3a.rsapps.net [172.27.255.110]) by smtp4.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTPS id CD72618C2 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 030DB6005B; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:56:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: peter@coinkite.com Received: by smtp1.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: peter-AT-coinkite.com) with ESMTPSA id C2C1E60066; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:56:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: peter@coinkite.com Received: from coinkite.com ([UNAVAILABLE]. [216.223.137.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.7.12); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:56:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:56:54 -0400 From: "Peter D. Gray" To: Tomas Susanka Message-ID: <20180621195654.GC99379@coinkite.com> Reply-To: Peter Gray References: <21a616f5-7a17-35b9-85ea-f779f20a6a2d@satoshilabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21a616f5-7a17-35b9-85ea-f779f20a6a2d@satoshilabs.com> Organization: Coinkite Cryptobank (www.coinkite.com) User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:20:27 +0000 Cc: Achow101 via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:06:44 -0000 --5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:32:07PM +0200, Tomas Susanka wrote: =2E.. > First of all, let me thank you for all the hard work you and others have > put into this. >=20 > On 21.6.2018 02:39, Achow101 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > While I agree that the BIP itself should be revised to reflect these su= ggestions, I fear that it may be too late. I know of a few other developers= who have implemented BIP 174 already but have not yet responded to this em= ail. >=20 > We do realize that this discussion should have happened earlier, however > agreeing on a good standard should be the number one priority for all > the parties involved. >=20 > The fact that someone already implemented this is indeed unfortunate, > but I don't think we should lower our demands on the standard just > because of a bad timing. We all want a "good" standard but we have that already, IMHO. What you are really saying is you want a "better" standard, and I would argue that's our enemy right now. It's just too easy to propose a few tweaks, with "wouldn't it be better if..."=20 I feel strongly we are entering the "design by committee" territory with BI= P174. I have personally implemented this spec on an embedded micro, as the signer and finalizer roles, and written multiple parsers for it as well. There is nothing wrong with it, and it perfectly meets my needs as a hardware wallet. So, there is a good proposal already spec'ed and implemented by multiple parties. Andrew has been very patiently shepherding the PR for over six months already. PSBT is something we need, and has been missing from the ecosystem for a long time. Let's push this out and start talking about future versions after we learn from this one. --- Peter D. Gray || Founder, Coinkite || Twitter: @dochex || GPG: A3A31B= AD 5A2A5B10 --5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJbLAMGAAoJEKOjG61aKlsQjq4H/19cAOr2lL0Eaf/rNZn16jFd iknUvbIJDXTwjw4SpxqlxPhOIrO7ZUn4aNTwAhDa8v4g+fHdOIEvSHqlikkRB50J kS8mttQwLe1PRhWCU8FBQ/mxp14veRTmD9UsjNsgkn2O85dq1tV2jC/RG62S6t9C iEJtzR90nSbOehp2xSBSGpc+qEeEi6udI2UBVksC3dSBUj9S65JUmsE5xa8ikpHM hl7NBNrP0jDzkx/hYQvwEl5pVZVN2EUNP2WXwKhRyTzMCE8nTwPKF6+HM4n1xyUl owbRHG7Ed2utMFM/K/D+4upKHRB4o7MSfmTQ9gxcHXZiFJZFNIYn0SY2J2qzWO4= =fsQW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe--