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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZ4h9-0000j3-7U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:06:19 +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 1VZ4gt-0004mA-K1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:06:19 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ip66.bbxnet.sk [91.219.133.66]) by mail.moloch.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1F7D182BC0A; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:05:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <52682C24.30700@250bpm.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:05:56 +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: Peter Todd 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> <20131023194039.GB31497@petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <20131023194039.GB31497@petertodd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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 TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED Exceeded time limit / deadline X-Headers-End: 1VZ4gt-0004mA-K1 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 20:06:19 -0000 On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote: > 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. Does that imply that the notes are deliberately obscured to force everyone to check the source code? Martin