📅 Original date posted:2015-08-25
📝 Original message:As I understand Github is not to be used for the high-level discussion
of a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts here (is this specified
somewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-0001?).
- I have some concerns about the structure and the wording of this
proposal. I think both the structure and the internal wording can be
slimmed down and simplified
- I also believe the "history lessons" should be trimmed out,
mentioned at best
- There's separate BIP for at least one of the code forks
- BIP-001 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP
number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an
editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed?
- What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standards
track?
- I believe it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed
upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard forks
can use in the future. This will also give us some space to work
through some of the complexities of forks in a definite way.
- Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards
track and a separate Informational BIP?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150825/e42a53b9/attachment.html>;
Andy Chase [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hg…2pv20
2023-06-07 17:38:11
in reply to nevent1q…t3gh
Author Public Key
npub1hgz0f5ghpavn49u2h2za7464v9w02fd534nx5w268plwr06zal3s32pv20Published at
2023-06-07 17:38:11Event JSON
{
"id": "0f2c1cac398fb3800780a399c02720dac4d07df55fa1c210c363e4d699472321",
"pubkey": "ba04f4d1170f593a978aba85df5755615cf525b48d666a395a387ee1bf42efe3",
"created_at": 1686159491,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"385e33ab72440159253f2443c7318a32057c3e342de38a27f1cce3b62a185490",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-25\n📝 Original message:As I understand Github is not to be used for the high-level discussion\nof a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts here (is this specified\nsomewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-0001?).\n\n- I have some concerns about the structure and the wording of this\n proposal. I think both the structure and the internal wording can be\n slimmed down and simplified\n - I also believe the \"history lessons\" should be trimmed out,\n mentioned at best\n - There's separate BIP for at least one of the code forks\n- BIP-001 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP\n number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an\n editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed?\n- What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standards\n track?\n - I believe it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed\n upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard forks\n can use in the future. This will also give us some space to work\n through some of the complexities of forks in a definite way.\n - Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards\n track and a separate Informational BIP?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150825/e42a53b9/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "f584d63d02d4a6fa1cd783a9734690338fa20722036b16a0909b760ff699e7f1410810aa8f0d5f55eb9555aa0e244489dbfc74b7e9fe0cf817050592fb121c3b"
}