📅 Original date posted:2021-07-02
📝 Original message:
Yes, many systems doesn't really make sense. We can add editors and revise the
BIP process as needed (BOLTs might prefer to use markdown?). Even aside from
Lightning BIPs, there are several improvements that can be made, so it makes
sense to address everything at once.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist
The BIP 2xx range has been set aside for Lightning years ago, and we can do
similar things to help keep things organized within BIPs. Kalle suggested
maybe it'd be better to do BIP "L###" instead, and perhaps that would work
better if there's likely to be several sub-namespaces.
Luke
On Friday 02 July 2021 12:02:28 Dan Gershony wrote:
> Hi,
> There will be many layer 2 (and probably layer 3) protocols (BOLT, RGB,
> Volts etc...) does it really make sense to merge them all into the BIPs
> system?
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 10:03 AM nathanael via Lightning-dev <
>
> lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Adding a third BIP editor more involved with Lightning sounds like a
> >
> > good idea.
> >
> > > Or alternatively if BOLTs were subsumed into BIPs I think Bastien
> > > would be a great additional BIP editor to cover Lightning related BIPs
> > >
> > > :) I think BOLTs being subsumed into BIPs would be nice but I'm
> > >
> > > pessimistic it will happen. Like legislation and regulation in the
> > > legacy financial system alphabet soups only expand they never get
> > > simplified. Let's at least resist alphabet soup expansion here.
> >
> > arent lightning improvements in the end bitcoin improvements too?
> > i am thinking of bips like the rfcs of the internet
> >
> > --
> > nathanael
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lightning-dev mailing list
> > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-09 13:02:59
in reply to nevent1q…p7ud
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-09 13:02:59Event JSON
{
"id": "fd97b2d5f637635eec293d5314b985a6e2c70bd0dd8c1be9c43c4f340d6b31ed",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686315779,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fb1514a6bbdf0465067b4db785a49eaa548c79f6fd924c5a99d33614cde6b145",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"994ce113000f64000896e4aa488057a0e301852eb5e6652864c7af4db46ff1b5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ee3984e3bdacb974f7132dfb2cc38e01012275ef1ca62b5b6c56c52b5fd08067"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-07-02\n📝 Original message:\nYes, many systems doesn't really make sense. We can add editors and revise the \nBIP process as needed (BOLTs might prefer to use markdown?). Even aside from \nLightning BIPs, there are several improvements that can be made, so it makes \nsense to address everything at once.\n\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist\n\nThe BIP 2xx range has been set aside for Lightning years ago, and we can do \nsimilar things to help keep things organized within BIPs. Kalle suggested \nmaybe it'd be better to do BIP \"L###\" instead, and perhaps that would work \nbetter if there's likely to be several sub-namespaces.\n\nLuke\n\n\nOn Friday 02 July 2021 12:02:28 Dan Gershony wrote:\n\u003e Hi,\n\u003e There will be many layer 2 (and probably layer 3) protocols (BOLT, RGB,\n\u003e Volts etc...) does it really make sense to merge them all into the BIPs\n\u003e system?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 10:03 AM nathanael via Lightning-dev \u003c\n\u003e\n\u003e lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Michael Folkson \u003cmichaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Adding a third BIP editor more involved with Lightning sounds like a\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e good idea.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Or alternatively if BOLTs were subsumed into BIPs I think Bastien\n\u003e \u003e \u003e would be a great additional BIP editor to cover Lightning related BIPs\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e :) I think BOLTs being subsumed into BIPs would be nice but I'm\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e pessimistic it will happen. Like legislation and regulation in the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e legacy financial system alphabet soups only expand they never get\n\u003e \u003e \u003e simplified. Let's at least resist alphabet soup expansion here.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e arent lightning improvements in the end bitcoin improvements too?\n\u003e \u003e i am thinking of bips like the rfcs of the internet\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e --\n\u003e \u003e nathanael\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev",
"sig": "b88a364822089f296482cfec26226e7a09af1c5c155330cb3e8dc41610dff44268d8f70f01e87ac0645a64ec94add4261e71caa9fbbc05c2f4b361921cba1760"
}