From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A268ACB for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yb0-f181.google.com (mail-yb0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CF2164 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d69so38420035ybf.2 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:01:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=zKUQlqOSIPQ3AaXKxu9C2ZcOjg6/53T1ZjGDFxRLipk=; b=vuJTirFsoDeUao7ySPqiiB7JSmGKnTAb/m14kCEVMVwOzEs/8xFlysnb7jQW8QeVLj BzZFo7xlXrBNrWcpMqo14A9jFp9dWm3HLDM+oukfEDAUBdGhxTW2d4r7EWbihwC+7+jO JK+4cJT8qT7VN+6xNvtLMt1c6qcmPME7PwIy2FmyJh5gBxlSYAOKyACCTMYfsx+zcHNo PVT2gASQWCrKGJjPO7Cczpg1PzxiPk6yzMqvAfRQ6ChHpvimFILcUmpT0auesxRsrW17 AQzX/ODuxIkakZa3yygphsFwyG4yNYGhau9KdR5zwQU+pfkg0dMl2IKrrV2oaPY3sywB mFUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=zKUQlqOSIPQ3AaXKxu9C2ZcOjg6/53T1ZjGDFxRLipk=; b=N7cPkPcumU//vDHrO+i1VjuVQtgbL9b79NzS2DI7HDQfw1UCEg/Vdzc1YS7dIxZKZr OI4pG72gkXxbTbnRCbbXefrQ+8EhkygC26EV9z5pefrEviTZ64XgQmhbAHpwC9dUxQWL OtptUu6mUY8Mw6oceOtvrGLi1dDkDlOzIDCw/Ab9yu/Vmlxm6KrWz/ayhkreKan/wJYY xGHjG2LZwj1xK8msq7Dq23gYKGES7gITMwnKHHDqFzr2scHjdRG7a6brhzXcKDZFEc6k h9VwM/7eWaLvhbN/f5cbU9tJeatz3FBRWCXdWDob9jXWXZd0W/dsI/WlJrAqxWyxkwxU CUaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMlMhBJaDFRXyDZcYoEYL1fUBReXfVdCWFKYJwF4d80rL2hSYHjfH5CCPKrBhtSA8W4ivdfghjL6lGWBg== X-Received: by 10.37.231.199 with SMTP id e190mr3255560ybh.194.1474480891453; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.33.145 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:01:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7844645.RLYLWYmWtM@garp> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:30 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WsEw8DfD8idjBNkLUgLZZmnEdNc Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requesting BIP assignment; Flexible Transactions. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:33 -0000 On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP number for my FT spec. This document does not appear to be concretely specified enough to review or implement from it. For example, it does not specify the serialization of "integer" (is it a 32 bit word in network byte order or?) nor does it specify how the presence of the optional fields are signaled nor the cardinality of the inputs or outputs. For clearly variable length elements ('bytearray') no mention is made of their length encoding. etc. Without information like this, I don't see how someone could realistically begin reviewing this proposal. The motivation seems unclear to me as well: The scheme is described as 'flexible' but it appears to remove flexibility from the existing system. The "schema" appears to be hardcoded and never communicated. If the goal is to simply have a more compact on the wire representation, this could be done without changing the serialization used for hashing or the serialization used for costing.