From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rr3Zm-0005x9-Gs for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:23:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.47; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-pz0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rr3Zl-0004fb-Aa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:23:58 +0000 Received: by dakf10 with SMTP id f10so2276025dak.34 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:23:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.73.100 with SMTP id k4mr21795031pbv.55.1327739031398; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.8.11 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:23:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <759be3f8-ca4c-4e36-aac1-b3894dda450d@email.android.com> References: <1327704664.31621.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201201271800.31819.luke@dashjr.org> <05d62c81-ef50-4c43-8fa5-65592c8f54a4@email.android.com> <201201272045.10787.luke@dashjr.org> <759be3f8-ca4c-4e36-aac1-b3894dda450d@email.android.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:23:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: bitcoin-list@bluematt.me Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041705ad522a1904b79255d1 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 (laanwj[at]gmail.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: 1Rr3Zl-0004fb-Aa Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 0020: URI Scheme 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: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:23:58 -0000 --f46d041705ad522a1904b79255d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'd state it this way: a spec needs to be minimally complete The subset implemented by bitcoin-qt allows description of *all* currently desirable bitcoin transactions. The rest of the spec is simply other ways to describe the same = redundancy In case new transaction types are added, the spec obviously needs to be extended. But not with a zillion ways to write "send XXX coins to YYY". Anyway, that's my last word about it. Wladimir On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:12 AM, wrote: > > > Luke-Jr wrote: > > >On Friday, January 27, 2012 7:36:31 PM bitcoin-list@bluematt.me wrote: > >> It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of > >Bitcoin-Qt for > >> drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in > >> > > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609 > >> d23cc858. > > > >It's been implemented in many clients for nearly all 2011. > >Bitcoin-Qt is just behind the pace. Not relevant. > > > >> However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of > >extraneous crap > >> in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since > >it was > >> explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed. > > > >You mean 3 months *after* the spec had a consensus and multiple > >implementations. > I'm really not gonna reopen this debate. You made a poll that was worded > in the most biased way I could think of and still lost. The multiple > implementations were written but you and I know of no sites that actually > had links to your version. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --f46d041705ad522a1904b79255d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'd state it this way: a spec needs to be=C2=A0minimally= =C2=A0complete

The subset implemented by bitcoin-qt allo= ws description of *all* currently desirable bitcoin transactions.

The rest of the spec is simply other ways to describe the same =3D red= undancy

In case new transaction types are added, t= he spec obviously needs to be extended. But not with a zillion ways to writ= e "send XXX coins to YYY".

Anyway, that's my last word about it.
Wladimir

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012= at 3:12 AM, <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> wrote:


Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrot= e:

>On Friday, January 27, 2012 7:36:31 PM bitcoin-list@bluematt.me wrote:
>> It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of
>Bitcoin-Qt for
>> drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in
>>
>https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit= /70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609
>> d23cc858.
>
>It's been implemented in many clients for nearly all 2011.
>Bitcoin-Qt is just behind the pace. Not relevant.
>
>> However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of
>extraneous crap
>> in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt= since
>it was
>> explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed.=
>
>You mean 3 months *after* the spec had a consensus and multiple
>implementations.
I'm really not gonna reopen this debate. =C2=A0You made a poll th= at was worded in the most biased way I could think of and still lost. =C2= =A0The multiple implementations were written but you and I know of no sites= that actually had links to your version.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Try before you buy =3D See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p= .sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--f46d041705ad522a1904b79255d1--