đ
Original date posted:2015-09-05
đ Original message:Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state
of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on
this proposal. I would welcome that.
Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to
move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!
Thanks to all for the discussion!
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> > I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go
> > through a process like this? Just hard forks?
>
> The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks
> should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork
> process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted
> BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher
> requirements.
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150905/9e4999b0/attachment.html>;
Andy Chase [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hgâŚ2pv20
2023-06-07 17:39:39
in reply to nevent1qâŚml0m
Author Public Key
npub1hgz0f5ghpavn49u2h2za7464v9w02fd534nx5w268plwr06zal3s32pv20Published at
2023-06-07 17:39:39Event JSON
{
"id": "46bf561ec9c52e79d13c7edf31e8eb7207dc5dc49855a2f08468e8a36260bd6c",
"pubkey": "ba04f4d1170f593a978aba85df5755615cf525b48d666a395a387ee1bf42efe3",
"created_at": 1686159579,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9c96b271d28066e4cb9eb50131a2ba9c23f5c1ad1af3e01fa5e76e13c28699d2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"603fbcb9f76aefbd4f1406f3237a4d074714c562894674218831e00cc63971e6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "đ
Original date posted:2015-09-05\nđ Original message:Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state\nof affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on\nthis proposal. I would welcome that.\n\nGreg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to\nmove forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!\n\nThanks to all for the discussion!\n\nOn Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go\n\u003e \u003e through a process like this? Just hard forks?\n\u003e\n\u003e The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks\n\u003e should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork\n\u003e process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted\n\u003e BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher\n\u003e requirements.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150905/9e4999b0/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "08fbcd9ca851e4958f2c862f9476f83885ce6bc3e9f8a89c81b9b8c8fef685288546f4d30e6e5e6857bab7394404da6e72048f7b350d274289b3e493a1de7300"
}