Concept ACK. As suggested in the other thread, maybe it is worth to
start a new BIP draft for this?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I posted a new draft of the proposal:
> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>
> The subsections still need to be
I posted a new draft of the proposal:
http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any
comments or suggestions.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There ar
Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different
degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to
mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most
levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things.
On Mo
Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over
things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better
prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their
"level" which is split into five as follows:
1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
2. Pe
