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 5C252B9D for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:20:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07F212DE for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so206876488iod.2 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=8cbHtretWNFs39dS23Izp1xzMX6v7L+i8It5XNNDF94=; b=Ew0QRRXaHOvH5wR9CZoD/aHklhwv5e87VBu3J5bW8gSuW8nmdpbNvvX/FbnJth7+S7 13qe7xrdzI/wNXdb9BZ7EWxn/KzbAVTHHmGS7l+50fRZWakBphsCjcEYxSE52HJFs4wH 5qd8BrafmD+W62jg0PkK6f8Mi6mOWhJ4BD8ZrjvfFUv9akUrMWJX5vSnI11NC5JqJsES pmi21AF3kS9jP2Y0/Ei8SPqr2ENtKQfcDnxbW8noff2mlWxQZSKu8KNPD/7FBXA730KN auA6t1z2tuxbQRnIdndWTRw36yHE8lpiAMJMMsIq7XSj05pzj9ZjV6QSNH5TxqWaBEds 4/pQ== X-Received: by 10.107.135.79 with SMTP id j76mr25880251iod.29.1440544847428; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asperous2@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.3.33 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:20:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Andy Chase Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:20:28 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uJz1HtvyFxQMFtd_Yc3LwYwDouM Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,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: [bitcoin-dev] BIP/Motivation and deployment of consensus rule changes ([soft/hard]forks) 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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:20:48 -0000 --001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 As I understand Github is not to be used for the high-level discussion of a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts here (is this specified somewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-0001?). - I have some concerns about the structure and the wording of this proposal. I think both the structure and the internal wording can be slimmed down and simplified - I also believe the "history lessons" should be trimmed out, mentioned at best - There's separate BIP for at least one of the code forks - BIP-001 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed? - What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standards track? - I believe it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard forks can use in the future. This will also give us some space to work through some of the complexities of forks in a definite way. - Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards track and a separate Informational BIP? --001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As I understand Github is not to be used for the= high-level discussion
of a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts = here (is this specified
somewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-000= 1?).

- =C2=A0 I have some concerns about the struc= ture and the wording of this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 proposal. I think both= the structure and the internal wording can be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 slim= med down and simplified
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 I also believe the= "history lessons" should be trimmed out,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 mentioned at best
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 There'= ;s separate BIP for at least one of the code forks
- =C2=A0 BIP-0= 01 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed?
- =C2=A0 What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standard= s
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 track?
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 I believe= it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed
=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard fork= s
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 can use in the future. This will al= so give us some space to work
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 through= some of the complexities of forks in a definite way.
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 - =C2=A0 Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards<= /div>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 track and a separate Informational BI= P?

--001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93--