From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:54:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgROsymXnXTrfLTLTQ=EDwaAFu+xrrD4Q-Gye5XWze7vFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJAW9j88VWNgmpXTjeSFOxHHzow82E2pyvyfKr=SRcS-Kg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> Talking about complete, BIP 40 and 41 don't even have an associated
> document:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
> I agree that was over-eager number assigning.
Maybe! The subject matter its assigned for is already _widely_
deployed, for better or worse.
(by comparison in the IETF, informational RFCs for already widely
deployed things are issued pretty liberally)
I'm not sure how we should be distinguish BIPs which are documenting
things which are already defacto standards vs ones which are proposing
that people do something new.
Mostly I think we don't want the BIP itself being a lever to force
something down people's throats, but rather the process should help
build consensus and review about how to do something— and then
document that consensus.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-19 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-21 14:30 [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 14:34 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 15:46 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-10-21 16:14 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 17:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 19:38 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2013-10-21 19:47 ` Luke-Jr
2013-10-21 20:57 ` Benjamin Cordes
2013-10-21 20:59 ` Benjamin Cordes
2013-10-22 6:39 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-22 6:59 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2013-10-22 7:03 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-10-22 7:34 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-22 7:49 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-22 7:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-10-22 8:20 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-22 14:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-23 7:38 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-23 19:40 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-23 20:05 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-23 20:27 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-23 21:07 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-10-23 21:42 ` Allen Piscitello
2013-10-23 21:49 ` Luke-Jr
2013-10-24 7:03 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-24 10:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-24 11:11 ` Christian Decker
2013-10-24 19:43 ` Jeremy Spilman
2013-11-19 16:32 ` Wladimir
2013-11-19 16:53 ` Drak
2013-11-19 17:01 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-11-19 17:07 ` Drak
2013-11-19 17:45 ` Wladimir
2013-11-19 17:54 ` Gregory Maxwell [this message]
2013-11-19 17:06 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CA+s+GJA=p+yvoJqUAMQQRcfYK1B8eMVSJDWaXW8o+X5dzCXkdA@mail.gmail.com>
2013-11-19 17:21 ` [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: " Wladimir
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAAS2fgROsymXnXTrfLTLTQ=EDwaAFu+xrrD4Q-Gye5XWze7vFw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gmaxwell@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=laanwj@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox