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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YHcSR-0000Hq-FD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:07:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YHcSQ-0003g7-B0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:07:47 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q59so32312037wes.10 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:07:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.7.103 with SMTP id i7mr24776575wja.53.1422727660319; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:07:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.9 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:07:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1422667849.25602.6.camel@TARDIS> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:07:40 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: c5u4cdQNn0i7IOkDCMxeN_mHnM4 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Habov=C5=A1tiak?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1YHcSQ-0003g7-B0 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP: protocol for multisignature payments 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, 31 Jan 2015 18:07:47 -0000 --047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I could look at implementing it someday, but now I'd like to receive > feedback from community. > IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an implementation. For one, it can show up issues in the design you didn't think of. For another, implementation is a lot more work than speccing out a few protocol buffers and high level procedures, so people who are going to write an implementation probably won't follow your design unless they have a great degree of confidence in it and some compelling reason to use it (e.g. interop with other users). --047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I could look at implementing it someday, but now= I'd like to receive
feedback from community.

IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an imp= lementation. For one, it can show up issues in the design you didn't th= ink of. For another, implementation is a lot more work than speccing out a = few protocol buffers and high level procedures, so people who are going to = write an implementation probably won't follow your design unless they h= ave a great degree of confidence in it and some compelling reason to use it= (e.g. interop with other users).


--047d7b5d43f4ce3aeb050df69821--