On 02/18/2018 10:57 AM, Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> They also do not require software coordination. Therefore, why should there
>> be
>> BIPs at all? Seems to me that we should instead add these documents to
>> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/docs
>
> Consensus is not trivial. I think d
> They also do not require software coordination. Therefore, why should there be
> BIPs at all? Seems to me that we should instead add these documents to
> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/docs
Consensus is not trivial. I think documentation is important, even if
it seems simple to some.
Personall
On 02/14/2018 02:01 PM, Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I define a buried deployment as a consensus rule change that affects
> validity of blocks that are buried by a sufficiently large number of
> blocks in the current valid most-work chain,
Sufficient for what, specifically?
> but the curr
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2018 10:01:46 PM Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should be assigned a
>> label "soft fork" or "hard fork". However, I think the differentiation
>>
On Wednesday 14 February 2018 10:01:46 PM Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should be assigned a
> label "soft fork" or "hard fork". However, I think the differentiation
> into soft fork or hard fork should not be made for BIPs that document
> bu
I define a buried deployment as a consensus rule change that affects
validity of blocks that are buried by a sufficiently large number of
blocks in the current valid most-work chain, but the current block
(and all its parents) remain valid.
BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should
