From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731BFFB7 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:47:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511EA162 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7315E38A9164; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:47:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Luke Dashjr To: Tomas Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:47:16 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <1451493317.3215816.479282618.4F666D71@webmail.messagingengine.com> <201512301710.27154.luke@dashjr.org> <1451499779.3919416.479357794.2C21BFA1@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1451499779.3919416.479357794.2C21BFA1@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201512302347.17609.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Decentralized Improvement Proposals X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:47:20 -0000 On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 6:22:59 PM Tomas wrote: > > The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention > > of version bits. > > The actual assignment of version bits isn't clear from the > specification. Are you saying that any implementation that wants to > propose a change is encouraged to pick a free version bit and use it? That should probably be clarified in the BIP, I agree. Perhaps it ought to be assigned the same as BIP numbers themselves, by the BIP editor? (Although as a limited resource, maybe that's not the best solution.) > Furthermore, my proposal addresses the danger of forward-incompatible > changes; a hard-fork can no longer occur as every implementation will > agree on the active the set of rules even if it has not implemented > them. This seems to be lacking in the version bits proposal. I don't think that's possible. First of all, a hardfork can always occur, since this is something done by the economy and not (even possibly opposed to) miners. Furthermore, consider the change affecting how further rule changes are made, such as a PoW algorithm change. Luke