📅 Original date posted:2015-08-27
📝 Original message: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 <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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. Peer Services
>> 3. RPC
>> 4. Implementations
>> 5. Applications
>>
>> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http://
>> blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>>
>> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP
>> draft for this.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150827/1f5da583/attachment.html>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 17:38:06
in reply to nevent1q…pwnq
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqPublished at
2023-06-07 17:38:06Event JSON
{
"id": "8c589692662745af83b22f1a8c260ef21df27283c68c6bfa4c8d1683c4c64430",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686159486,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ef9ec8bbcc2607482202a3529eeba762c4af4f6cbffe0377501d61855bb675d1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2a0177c171ae9e68e11adb40b7340cb139989da6efbf92ead4d0b6a49c304c56",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-27\n📝 Original message:I posted a new draft of the proposal:\nhttp://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html\n\nThe subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any\ncomments or suggestions.\n\nOn Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Also, the current \"type\" attribute needs modification. There are different\n\u003e degrees of \"standard\". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to\n\u003e mean that doing X is \"officially\" endorsed by any other devs. At most\n\u003e levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention\n\u003e\u003e over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better\n\u003e\u003e prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their\n\u003e\u003e \"level\" which is split into five as follows:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)\n\u003e\u003e 2. Peer Services\n\u003e\u003e 3. RPC\n\u003e\u003e 4. Implementations\n\u003e\u003e 5. Applications\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http://\n\u003e\u003e blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP\n\u003e\u003e draft for this.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150827/1f5da583/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "4b5c5b0414a144c46f1830584839892b38f8ce9f86200f494f188de19c9efdcba243e93eca1c20290116136e94d5beb4b8f069ff569f34d1ceaa3f31c4a1af2b"
}