On 23/10/13 23:07, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> In short,
> consistency is more important than correctness.
That's a nice and concise way to put it and any potential protocol
documentation should start with a statement like that.
> However, I do not think that making it hard to find information about
On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote:
> The reference implementation is the specification - the "specification"
> on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the real
> specification. If you don't already understand that and the nuance of
> that statement you should assume the protoco
On 22/10/13 16:08, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> All that is good practice, but we should avoid adding burdensome
> process that might discourage BIP writing.
>
> Consider a distributed approach: if you feel a draft needs more
> sections or better language, submit a pull request yourself and help
> communi
On 22/10/13 09:56, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
>> There's also Security Considerations part in
>> every RFC that is pretty relevant for Bitcoin.
>
> Which would say something interesting like "If the bitcoin ne
On 22/10/13 09:03, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman
> wrote:
>> Have you seen: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification ?
>
> Take care, the information in the wiki is woefully incomplete.
Imagine myself, with no prior knowledge of Bitcoin loo
On 21/10/13 21:47, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
>> 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
>
> Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular and
> formal form.
I wanted to have a look at
On 21/10/13 09:07, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> The list comes from BIP 1.
Sorry, I haven't meant you personally. It was just a generic question
about using existing process instead of inventing a new one on the go.
>> Have it been considered to do this via IETF? The process there is hardened
>>
On 21/10/13 08:52, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> How about putting them into sub directories that map onto the status of the
> BIP?
>
> Reading BIP 1, that would make:
>
> Accepted
> Active
> Draft
> Deferred
> Final
> Rejected
> Replaced
> Withdrawn
Have it been considered to do this via IETF? The
8 matches
Mail list logo
