📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21
📝 Original message:On 21 October 2013 09:03, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:
> On 21/10/13 08:52, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > How about putting them into sub directories that map onto the status of
> the BIP?
> >
> > Reading BIP 1, that would make:
> >
> > Accepted
> > Active
> > Draft
> > Deferred
> > Final
> > Rejected
> > Replaced
> > Withdrawn
>
> Have it been considered to do this via IETF? The process there is
> hardened by 40 years of experience and 7000+ RFCs. Probably better than
> anything you can devise yourself.
>
IETF is great for some things. I think the bitcoin URI scheme is being
registered with them.
However the process can take many years to get to an RFC, for something
relatively simple, not to mention there can be costs too
Given that crypto currencies are a relatively new field, I am unsure the
IETF has a wealth of expertise in this area, compared with the core devs
Maybe IETF is better to standardize some of the communications or
serialization components, but not so much the BIPs. Or perhaps some of the
BIPs can be written up as "Informational" rather than "Proposed Standard"
in the RFC format, and reviewed
I've followed quite a few FLOSS projects over the years. Overall, I've
been amazingly impressed with the BIP process (dont forget it's used in
other systems too -- python?). It seems an agile process, that strikes an
great balance between needed features, and documentation. I think that's
exactly what will continue bitcoin's momentum in the short to medium term.
>
> Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most
> from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131021/1b8fd110/attachment.html>;
Melvin Carvalho [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uv…saxrt
2023-06-07 15:07:38
in reply to nevent1q…5my3
Author Public Key
npub1uvtfvcegcn9kds68r8he57emc480vqtx8t22kpsctxgjxae44gvsksaxrtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:07:38Event JSON
{
"id": "cab1de7dcdbdceabb2f66d2d05365c0954938fb37acd8e33896a825a95ec85f3",
"pubkey": "e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19",
"created_at": 1686150458,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d7c1869dab2bd34b6e5ae79cda5d73bda811a1af3e65276521fa77a929d2819d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8f692a7f6441aad252d3be4e1b1a1adf5a1c60b1ccf0d24acf88d78373aacf21",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a07382f2047b309ebb8303d291bbe36556308187afdeaea697a464e7d3a93c53"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21\n📝 Original message:On 21 October 2013 09:03, Martin Sustrik \u003csustrik at 250bpm.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 21/10/13 08:52, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:\n\u003e \u003e How about putting them into sub directories that map onto the status of\n\u003e the BIP?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Reading BIP 1, that would make:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Accepted\n\u003e \u003e Active\n\u003e \u003e Draft\n\u003e \u003e Deferred\n\u003e \u003e Final\n\u003e \u003e Rejected\n\u003e \u003e Replaced\n\u003e \u003e Withdrawn\n\u003e\n\u003e Have it been considered to do this via IETF? The process there is\n\u003e hardened by 40 years of experience and 7000+ RFCs. Probably better than\n\u003e anything you can devise yourself.\n\u003e\n\nIETF is great for some things. I think the bitcoin URI scheme is being\nregistered with them.\n\nHowever the process can take many years to get to an RFC, for something\nrelatively simple, not to mention there can be costs too\n\nGiven that crypto currencies are a relatively new field, I am unsure the\nIETF has a wealth of expertise in this area, compared with the core devs\n\nMaybe IETF is better to standardize some of the communications or\nserialization components, but not so much the BIPs. Or perhaps some of the\nBIPs can be written up as \"Informational\" rather than \"Proposed Standard\"\nin the RFC format, and reviewed\n\nI've followed quite a few FLOSS projects over the years. Overall, I've\nbeen amazingly impressed with the BIP process (dont forget it's used in\nother systems too -- python?). It seems an agile process, that strikes an\ngreat balance between needed features, and documentation. I think that's\nexactly what will continue bitcoin's momentum in the short to medium term.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Martin\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e October Webinars: Code for Performance\n\u003e Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.\n\u003e Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most\n\u003e from\n\u003e the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register \u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131021/1b8fd110/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "73b2c77757728d1e0f4e7618f006f57f344d04beac83046f979dd493510c9608d628a76e26ae26cbe1abd7fb416ec659e90f60c50675a5efe93491b919f2e408"
}