Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-10-19 📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-10-19
📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 04:35:13PM -0700, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> >> See BIP 1 for the process.. proposals go to this mailing list first.
> >
> > FWIW, he did post to the mailing list and he got an underwhelming response:
> >
> > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20ec1e35-3051-45d6-b449-e4a4d5c06dc8%40me.com&forum_name=bitcoin-development
>
> Although I agree that the number of responses on the mailing list was minimal, they were overall positive. Mike voiced concerns about not having a date field to limit the rescan when importing, but other than that, most of the discussion was on bitcointalk. I've made a number of revisions, trying to incorporate the suggestions that were given. Obviously this doesn't mean that the draft is final (specifically the KDF's that can be used is still up for debate and having 29 undefined ID's means it's reasonably future proof).
>
> Having it on the BIP page doesn't make it any more official, I agree, but it does increase its exposure and will hopefully spark some more discussion.
Having it on the BIP page *does* make it more official, at least the way
we've been using the BIP page, which is to filter out the proposals that
haven't gotten much support at all. (or maybe are just controversial)
FWIW I myself haven't pushed hard for getting an "official" BIP number
for my draft NODE_BLOOM BIP, even though I've got support from most of
the dev team on the pull-request:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2900 I'm probably at the point
where I could get one assigned - Litecoin for instance has made that
change - but really I just see that as a formality; that it's still a
controversial idea is much more relevant.
In any case I don't see any working code in your email, I'd suggest
writing some. You're BIP would be much more likely to be accepted if you
were more involved in wallet development.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000ad5e0cbc9438203b9cf2dcae776774f59575e38fcefa802ed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131019/535a9a14/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 04:35:13PM -0700, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> >> See BIP 1 for the process.. proposals go to this mailing list first.
> >
> > FWIW, he did post to the mailing list and he got an underwhelming response:
> >
> > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20ec1e35-3051-45d6-b449-e4a4d5c06dc8%40me.com&forum_name=bitcoin-development
>
> Although I agree that the number of responses on the mailing list was minimal, they were overall positive. Mike voiced concerns about not having a date field to limit the rescan when importing, but other than that, most of the discussion was on bitcointalk. I've made a number of revisions, trying to incorporate the suggestions that were given. Obviously this doesn't mean that the draft is final (specifically the KDF's that can be used is still up for debate and having 29 undefined ID's means it's reasonably future proof).
>
> Having it on the BIP page doesn't make it any more official, I agree, but it does increase its exposure and will hopefully spark some more discussion.
Having it on the BIP page *does* make it more official, at least the way
we've been using the BIP page, which is to filter out the proposals that
haven't gotten much support at all. (or maybe are just controversial)
FWIW I myself haven't pushed hard for getting an "official" BIP number
for my draft NODE_BLOOM BIP, even though I've got support from most of
the dev team on the pull-request:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2900 I'm probably at the point
where I could get one assigned - Litecoin for instance has made that
change - but really I just see that as a formality; that it's still a
controversial idea is much more relevant.
In any case I don't see any working code in your email, I'd suggest
writing some. You're BIP would be much more likely to be accepted if you
were more involved in wallet development.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000ad5e0cbc9438203b9cf2dcae776774f59575e38fcefa802ed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131019/535a9a14/attachment.sig>;