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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VXfiW-0007aP-Sj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:13:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.42; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VXfiV-0003le-Lr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:13:56 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ea20so447962lab.1 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:13:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.29.201 with SMTP id m9mr7702572lah.6.1382224428908; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.72 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:13:48 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Jean-Paul Kogelman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: me.com] -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: 1VXfiV-0003le-Lr Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Root key encoding / BIP process Was: A critique of bitcoin open source community 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, 19 Oct 2013 23:13:57 -0000 On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote: > I have a question regarding this part. I wrote a BIP for base 58 encoding= / encryption of BIP 32 root keys. The BIP page states that we shouldn't ad= d to this list ourselves, but should contact you for a BIP number. I have c= ontacted you a couple times on bitcointalk for a BIP number, but haven't re= ceived a response (or do those requests explicitly have to go to your email= address)? > > Proposal in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D258678.0 I responded to you in PM on July 19, 2013, 05:57:15 PM. Then I followed up with a technical review after I didn't see much other technical review happening: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D258678.msg3128364#msg3128364 Which you responded to, correcting a few of my misunderstandings and offering to make changes to the specification to make it more clear and to correct a few of the limitations I pointed out. At that point I put aside further action on your proposal waiting for you to make those updates. The reason to go through a serialization point for BIP numbers is to avoid assigning them to things to people's pet ideas that haven't been reviewed by or represent any identifiable part of the Bitcoin community. (After all: You're free to publish any specs at all on your own without a BIP. BIPs are not "official" but they should be stronger than "some guy says this" if they are to mean anything). I don't generally see my role in this process as acting as an approver, but rather just someone recognizing approval that already exists. Generally I try not to assign numbers to things before I see evidence of discussion which I can reasonably expect to result in an "community outcome". In some cases this means that I'll take up the role of going through and being a second set of eyes on the document myself (directly contributing to creating some community approval), as I did in this case. On October 2nd, you followed up with https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D258678.msg3287415#msg3287415 indicating that you'd made the changes addressing my points. My apologies, I missed this completely as I not working on Bitcoin things pretty much at all during 09/26 to 10/13 due to other obligations. Thanks for your patience. Following up here was absolutely the right thing to do if I'm dropping the ball. Pieter, do you have any opinions to offer on this? (Also, generally to the list. I'm singling out Pieter only because just asking "anyone" to comment tends to be less effective.)