On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Wladimir <laa...@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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation. Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development