From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R5hAp-0006XK-9c for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:58:27 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1R5hAo-0001tR-Cl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:58:27 +0000 Received: by fxi1 with SMTP id 1so5806149fxi.34 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:58:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.61.66 with SMTP id s2mr5369058fah.27.1316451478462; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.25.105 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <21269.192.251.226.206.1316448084.squirrel@lavabit.com> References: <201109182104.45994.luke@dashjr.org> <21269.192.251.226.206.1316448084.squirrel@lavabit.com> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:57:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 (gavinandresen[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 0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1R5hAo-0001tR-Cl Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Enhancement Proposals (BEPS) 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, 19 Sep 2011 16:58:27 -0000 New 'standard' transaction forms would be perfect candidates for BEPS. I think we aught to have a formal proposal to separate the protocol version from the client version, too. -- Does anybody besides me think maybe we should name them something other than "BEP" ? I'm worried we'll regret it in two years when a google for "BEP003" takes you to the BitTorrent EPs instead of the BitCoin EPs. Maybe "BIP" == Bitcoin Improvement Proposal or "PEB" == Proposal to Enhance Bitcoin or "BER" == Bitcoin Enhancement Request I think I like "BIP" (PEB sounds like a diet soda, and I don't know if BER should be pronounced "bear" or "beer"). I generally don't care about names, but it seems like a little planning now might save some confusion later. And I don't want the BitTorrent folks to get pissed off at us for 'stealing' their acronym, either. -- -- Gavin Andresen