Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Wednesday 16 Mar 2016 22:24:30 Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It is important that the forum for comments have a low barrier of use. The > Bitcoin Wiki requires only a request for editing privileges, whereas GitHub > wiki would require reading and agreeing to a lengthy Terms of Service >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of existing BI

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Friday, March 18, 2016 9:42:16 AM Btc Drak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > BIP Comments are not a part of the BIP itself, merely post-completion > > notes from various external parties. So having them external does not > > make the BIP > > any less self-contain

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:43:09 PM Btc Drak wrote: > I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be > self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the > Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources > are bound to g

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > BIP Comments are not a part of the BIP itself, merely post-completion notes > from various external parties. So having them external does not make the > BIP > any less self-contained. Right now, this information takes the form of > reddit/for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

Hi, Arguing about which wiki is better doesn't feel productive to me. Can we just let BIP authors decide for themselves? Draft-BIP2 already has a provision for allowing authors to specify a backup wiki of their own choosing; can we just make that the policy in all cases (and drop the need for a ba

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Mar 10, 2016 17:28, "Mustafa Al-Bassam" wrote: > > The fact that it takes very little time and effort to prevent a BIP from reaching final status, means that in an base of millions of users it's guaranteed that some disgruntled or bored person out there will attack it, even if it's for the lulz

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:02:15 PM Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: > On 10/03/16 00:53, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:29:16 AM Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: > >>> A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy, > >>> particularly including those selling desirable

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

By the way, on that basis it might be a good idea to introduce an extra status called "deployed" to indicate when a hard fork has reached a super-majority and is being used by the economy in practice, but not the whole economy. On 10/03/16 16:28, Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: > > > On 10/03/16 15:59, J

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On 10/03/16 15:59, Jorge Timón wrote: > > > On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: > > > I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork > > becoming active. But I can envision a situation where so

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork > becoming active. But I can envision a situation where someone will try > to be annoying about it and point to one ins

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On Mar 10, 2016 02:04, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > >A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy, > particularly including those selling desirable goods and services in > exchange for bitcoin payments, as well as Bitco

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On 10/03/16 00:53, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:29:16 AM Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: >>> the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork >>> has potentially-majority support, or at most three months. >> This wording is awkward. What is "potentially-majority

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

> the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork has potentially-majority support, or at most three months. This wording is awkward. What is "potentially-majority"? >A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy, particularly including those selling desirab

[bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

It has been about 1 month since BIP 2 finished receiving comments, so I believe it is an appropriate time to begin the process of moving it to Final Status. Toward this end, I have opened a pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350 The current requirement for this is that "the