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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VYXCw-00067G-C9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:20:54 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from chrocht.moloch.sk ([62.176.169.44] helo=mail.moloch.sk) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1VYXCs-0004RQ-Sh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:20:54 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ip66.bbxnet.sk [91.219.133.66]) by mail.moloch.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81F481801A61; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:20:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5266355C.6090303@250bpm.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:20:44 +0200 From: Martin Sustrik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Maxwell References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com> <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org> <52661DB7.7040805@250bpm.com> <52662AA1.5050509@250bpm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: 250bpm.com] X-Headers-End: 1VYXCs-0004RQ-Sh 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: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:20:54 -0000 On 22/10/13 09:56, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote: >> There's also Security Considerations part in >> every RFC that is pretty relevant for Bitcoin. > > Which would say something interesting like "If the bitcoin network > implements inconsistent behavior in the consensus critical parts of > the protocol the world ends. As such, conformance or _non_-conformance > with this specification (in particular, sections 4. 5. and 6.) may be > required for security." In fact, yes. In the end it boils down to saying something like: "Bitcoin is a unique global distributed application and thus all implementations MUST support the version of the protocol currently in use, irrespective of whether it have been documented and/or published. This RFC is meant only for informational purposes and is a snapshot of the protocol as to Oct 22nd 2013." That being said, I understand the idea of not publishing the spec so that everyone is forced to work with live data. > A Bitcoin protocol RFC would be a great place to exercise RFC 6919 > keywords. ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919 ) Heh. Haven't seen that one. Martin