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 1YVmaQ-00056a-CE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:46:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.169; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YVmaL-0003mq-2R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:46:34 +0000 Received: by iecsl2 with SMTP id sl2so5661999iec.1 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.107.7 with SMTP id gy7mr67603599igb.49.1426103182142; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.6.133 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <54F32EED.6040103@electrum.org> <550057FD.6030402@electrum.org> <1426100677.1908596.239033309.7C4F8D47@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:46:22 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Ricardo Filipe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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: 1YVmaL-0003mq-2R Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged 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, 11 Mar 2015 19:46:34 -0000 On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > i guess you look at the glass half full :) > even though what you say is true, we should aim for wallets not to > require those instructions, by standardizing these things in BIPs. > let's hope bitcoin doesn't fail in standards as our industries have in > the past... There are genuine principled disagreements on how some things should be done. There are genuine differences in functionality. We cannot expect and should not expect complete compatibility. If you must have complete compatibility: use the same software (or maybe not even then, considering how poor the forward compatibility of some things has been..). What we can hope to do, and I think the best we can hope to do, is to minimize the amount of gratuitous incompatibility and reduce the amount of outright flawed constructions (so if there are choices which must be made, they're at least choices among relatively good options).