On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogel...@me.com> 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 add to > this list ourselves, but should contact you for a BIP number. I have > contacted you a couple times on bitcointalk for a BIP number, but haven't > received a response (or do those requests explicitly have to go to your email > address)? > > Proposal in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678.0
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=258678.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=258678.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.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
