From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X6hUi-0008OR-Fc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:44:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=k.okupski@googlemail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X6hUg-00058l-Oc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:44:44 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ho1so2681594wib.2 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:44:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.63.228 with SMTP id j4mr20150868wjs.7.1405349073611; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (s53751712.adsl.online.nl. [83.117.23.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v14sm25907037wjw.38.2014.07.14.07.44.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53C3ECD0.2000809@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:44:32 +0200 From: Krzysztof Okupski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060208070002030109020802" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (k.okupski[at]googlemail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1X6hUg-00058l-Oc Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Protocol Specification 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: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:44:44 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060208070002030109020802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've renamed it to "Bitcoin Developer Specification" a little while ago. Maybe it should rather be named "Bitcoin Developer Reference"? Either way, creating a good description of Bitcoin is an incremental process and there are certainly many quirks I'm not aware of. I hope that together we will soon be able to fill in the missing gaps. Warm greetings, Krzysztof Okupski On 07/14/2014 01:26 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Nice work, but please don't call it the "Bitcoin protocol spec". Your > document is not a spec. It is an attempt to describe in English the Bitcoin > protocol, but anyone who implemented it based on your description would get > it wrong. For example you didn't mention the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug and many > other important areas like the difficulty transitions are also left > unspecified. > > As a loose description of the protocol for newbies it's an invaluable > resource and perhaps we should link to it from the developer guide. As > something that claims to be a specification it is quite possibly dangerous > - the only spec that matters is the C++ original. --------------060208070002030109020802 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
I've renamed it to "Bitcoin Developer Specification" a little while ago.
Maybe it should rather be named "Bitcoin Developer Reference"? Either
way, creating a good description of Bitcoin is an incremental process
and there are certainly many quirks I'm not aware of. I hope that
together we will soon be able to fill in the missing gaps.

Warm greetings,
Krzysztof Okupski

On 07/14/2014 01:26 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:

Nice work, but please don't call it the "Bitcoin protocol spec". Your
document is not a spec. It is an attempt to describe in English the Bitcoin
protocol, but anyone who implemented it based on your description would get
it wrong. For example you didn't mention the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug and many
other important areas like the difficulty transitions are also left
unspecified.

As a loose description of the protocol for newbies it's an invaluable
resource and perhaps we should link to it from the developer guide. As
something that claims to be a specification it is quite possibly dangerous
- the only spec that matters is the C++ original.
--------------060208070002030109020802--