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 21778905 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:31:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149055.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149055.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.149.55]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505CA1A7 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt21.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u6FGVGM8067344; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:31:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u6FGVDvn053019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:31:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 309E6400E9; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 933052059F; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:31:12 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20160715163112.GA9125@fedora-21-dvm> References: <201607151608.52063.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201607151608.52063.luke@dashjr.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 8c770d3a-4aa9-11e6-829e-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdwcUEkAYAgsB AmAbWlNeU1x7WGc7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUQMednp1 QEAeVxpydgwIf3ty bQhqDXdcXBB5JFt5 Ex9dCGwHMGF9YGIW BV1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z GA41ejw8IwAXEzhc XhwWZU8KTU8XEyV0 SRcYVR8OJQVUA21t f1hucwdGWA4YNEl6 aAJ6Mf9/ X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:31:24 -0000 --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 04:08:51PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should progre= ss to=20 > Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clea= r on=20 > whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals= =20 > requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process= =20 > BIPs. Background of this discussion is at: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413 > (Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing = this=20 > topic to the mailing list) As of writing the text of BIP68 says: 'This BIP is to be deployed by "versionbits" BIP9 using bit 0.' Essentially including BIP9 as part of the BIP68 standard; BIP68 could have equally been written by including some or all of the text of BIP9. If it had done that, that text would be part of a "Standard BIP" rather than "Informational BIP", thus I'll argue that BIP9 should also be a "Standard B= IP" Also, note that if we ever modified BIP9, we'd most likely do so with a new BIP, and in soft-forks using that new standard, would refer to the new BIP = #. > Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that: > - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9 > -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class > - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully > -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted sta= tus, > but also Final status > -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status >=20 > If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs= 9,=20 > 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I= also=20 > need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to (= and=20 > beyond) Accepted. >=20 > BIP 9: Pieter Wuille > Peter Todd > Greg Maxwell > Rusty Russell ACK "Final" status. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXiQ/NAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yagsH/2xlz8aAhmZ3uu7khgIsuwzE A2YO+xdw62LcxTcBqyMBMTQwDGr/eRcftZo5/ClpAHIyBXLqpCf/ITQfraMVsxih lThnrqSP0+GJPYyNZFBTwRsVvp2ja1RIbVJrcGktDjve90452VTEyI5pjtmcjJba 3CWU4p9/etMqsnEXLpB+qfztTsOd6yXMHGuKrrm441EG9cE/g3ijxi0bOhNE1sn5 4Ed3fEoxi5xZdnClb06P/FGt8L9vNo0UYKAaK1OF4qbPC8ubSSch18yU8AG25YdA B9/MFeFtf1qK2siZtusfVlZzsuMqXqm2ggBgd4XjdSR2wEmj75XDeiI5ZHfgdRw= =gwGj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--