š
Original date posted:2013-10-23
š Original message:On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:05:56PM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> 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 protocol is fixed in stone and
> >doesn't evolve at all; that statement is not quite true, but it's very
> >close to the truth.
>
> Does that imply that the notes are deliberately obscured to force
> everyone to check the source code?
What's on the wiki is mostly the work of people who aren't working on
the reference implementation, so no, you can't say that.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000003c1d48b638b9857cb56b6fe9188a60c481fbc9b738ccb4663
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131023/afb18a9c/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:07:47
in reply to nevent1qā¦6ngx
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:07:47Event JSON
{
"id": "c89258accd680e728d6b32c39ead4513af158ba5082b6ad8b8489035e41c9951",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686150467,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7825845c40e7246842c64e1640ea39dcb04d6d8f430fae7ba311b465db0e4d0f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"883beac0d944f791469ece18e1fd1a88b27200f82e570905cd199306e7b29558",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a07382f2047b309ebb8303d291bbe36556308187afdeaea697a464e7d3a93c53"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2013-10-23\nš Original message:On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:05:56PM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote:\n\u003e On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003eThe reference implementation is the specification - the \"specification\"\n\u003e \u003eon the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the real\n\u003e \u003especification. If you don't already understand that and the nuance of\n\u003e \u003ethat statement you should assume the protocol is fixed in stone and\n\u003e \u003edoesn't evolve at all; that statement is not quite true, but it's very\n\u003e \u003eclose to the truth.\n\u003e \n\u003e Does that imply that the notes are deliberately obscured to force\n\u003e everyone to check the source code?\n\nWhat's on the wiki is mostly the work of people who aren't working on\nthe reference implementation, so no, you can't say that.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000003c1d48b638b9857cb56b6fe9188a60c481fbc9b738ccb4663\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131023/afb18a9c/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "81a8b6e278f66163ce211154efa5e12e60678ef15ce90f2227fbcc28784005851af89b85aa24a751dc7fc990d0659d89ab73432290e077c99c0696971475447f"
}