📅 Original date posted:2013-10-22
📝 Original message:On 22/10/13 09:56, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> 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 network
> implements inconsistent behavior in the consensus critical parts of
> the protocol the world ends. As such, conformance or _non_-conformance
> with this specification (in particular, sections 4. 5. and 6.) may be
> required for security."
In fact, yes.
In the end it boils down to saying something like: "Bitcoin is a unique
global distributed application and thus all implementations MUST support
the version of the protocol currently in use, irrespective of whether it
have been documented and/or published. This RFC is meant only for
informational purposes and is a snapshot of the protocol as to Oct 22nd
2013."
That being said, I understand the idea of not publishing the spec so
that everyone is forced to work with live data.
> A Bitcoin protocol RFC would be a great place to exercise RFC 6919
> keywords. ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919 )
Heh. Haven't seen that one.
Martin
Martin Sustrik [ARCHIVE] /
npub15p…756lp
2023-06-07 15:07:45
in reply to nevent1q…cef2
Author Public Key
npub15pec9usy0vcfawurq0ffrwlrv4trpqv84l02af5h53jw05af83fsn756lpSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:07:45Event JSON
{
"id": "736e065d40cd9c41467f2878b6e0487d19b64e669c1bf8ed51a3426db0b86ade",
"pubkey": "a07382f2047b309ebb8303d291bbe36556308187afdeaea697a464e7d3a93c53",
"created_at": 1686150465,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7825845c40e7246842c64e1640ea39dcb04d6d8f430fae7ba311b465db0e4d0f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"72dcc195cd15262b2f8353b510bb3691ca0be1d12b059e0949eb4d1a32a3161e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-10-22\n📝 Original message:On 22/10/13 09:56, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Martin Sustrik \u003csustrik at 250bpm.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e There's also Security Considerations part in\n\u003e\u003e every RFC that is pretty relevant for Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e Which would say something interesting like \"If the bitcoin network\n\u003e implements inconsistent behavior in the consensus critical parts of\n\u003e the protocol the world ends. As such, conformance or _non_-conformance\n\u003e with this specification (in particular, sections 4. 5. and 6.) may be\n\u003e required for security.\"\n\nIn fact, yes.\n\nIn the end it boils down to saying something like: \"Bitcoin is a unique \nglobal distributed application and thus all implementations MUST support \nthe version of the protocol currently in use, irrespective of whether it \nhave been documented and/or published. This RFC is meant only for \ninformational purposes and is a snapshot of the protocol as to Oct 22nd \n2013.\"\n\nThat being said, I understand the idea of not publishing the spec so \nthat everyone is forced to work with live data.\n\n\u003e A Bitcoin protocol RFC would be a great place to exercise RFC 6919\n\u003e keywords. ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919 )\n\nHeh. Haven't seen that one.\n\nMartin",
"sig": "8337bf8c8e19b73b9fce7b644da07ccc6e8dcee4b5e99b569961f94b811f48388882a5b7302b5f2e75019947b4ff2da8cdc19df97d344ddfcc76bece92e2b11f"
}