Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:41:35AM -0800, Toby Padilla wrote: > Then the moderation is being unevenly applied. Luke commented against my > BIP multiple times right after it was published but it took hours for my > responses to go through and I had to track people down on IRC to ask about > it: >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:16:30 PM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > > I really don't like

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

I think it would be helpful to clarify this in the list documentation. Right now there's a bunch of conflicting information. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev states: "*Greylisting Notice* Your first post to this list may be delayed by 5+ minutes due to Greylisting

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:58:21 PM Gavin Andresen wrote: > I don't like the definition of "consensus". I think the definition > described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the > mailing list and the wiki. How can I improve this? Inevitably, every medium of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Please provide any > objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be > reached. For section "Formally defining consensus", Where objections were not deemed

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release" addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written there. I'll take a stab at what it means: Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided their own implementations of API/RPC and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust value, > it makes no sense to object to it. I'll point out that getting a BIP

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on > the > Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on > them, and expanding the list

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the > > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:41:01AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The wording is a little strange and I think it *should* work as you state, > but Bitcoin Core will actually reject any output that has zero value (even > a single OP_RETURN output -- I just tested again to make sure).

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki The editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it with his new proposed BIP :) I really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned the BIP.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:50:29 AM Dave Scotese wrote: > > The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release" > > addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written > > there.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

In the section https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki#formally-defining-consensus Can we please find another term for the "consensus" here (which is often confused with "consensus rules", "consensus code" etc)? In BIP99 I used the term "uncontroversial", but

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol

Then the moderation is being unevenly applied. Luke commented against my BIP multiple times right after it was published but it took hours for my responses to go through and I had to track people down on IRC to ask about it:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:28:40 PM Dave Scotese wrote: > How about "defining" (rules, code, etc.) Such code and rules define what > bitcoin is. It does require consensus and it ends up being a concord, but > all that can come after the fact (just as it did after bitcoin was first >