Looks pretty reasonable to me. If Gavin changes the mainline client to use
this format I'll change BitcoinJ as well. It'll need a bit of API work so
clients are sure to set it up properly.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0014
>
> Thank
Sure, of course, as long as it's clearly labelled as just your thoughts, no
issues.
For dispute mediation the way I'd start is playing around with some UI
design stuff and a toy protocol underneath. Once the process is smooth from
the users POV (no seeing binary blobs disguised as text) then it sh
Fair enough. I'm not expecting anyone to just suddenly adopt BIP 0010
just because I published it to the wiki. I put it there to get feedback
on what it might be missing, and maybe we can converge on a good
preliminary solution. Then update it as we start playing with it and
find more featur
BIPs are either "standards track" (affects everyone, represents consensus),
"informational" (ie basically just summarizing the authors viewpoints on
things) or "process".
My point is you can't have a credible standards track BIP until something
has been implemented end to end. I don't think it's a
Maybe I'm new to this, but this doesn't make any sense. I thought the
point of the BIP was to collaborate to come up with a good solution.
That's exactly what I want to do before I implement it in my software.
After all, they are "Bitcoin Improvement *Proposals*." It seems like
EXACTLY what
Please don't create BIPs that don't have any actual implementation behind
them. Design discussion is fine but the mailing list works for that.
If I were going to implement escrow transactions in BitCoinJ it would not
matter what was written here. I'd just implement the design I thought made
sense.
6 matches
Mail list logo
