📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03
📝 Original message:It's a good idea. It would remove friction from the process and
assignment is auditable to boot, something I've had difficulty with in
the past. Almost every time I see a BIP number I would wonder, is that
self-assigned (and thus invalid) or has it been assigned by the BIP
editor.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for
> storing and presenting BIPs.
>
> I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed
> to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using
> the authors name and an index as the number) as the mechenism to
> request number assignment.
>
> Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable?
>
> (Please do not respond to this message with anything but a strictly
> directed answer to that question, start a new thread for a different
> subject. Thanks!)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Btc Drak [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lh…zg7ed
2023-06-07 17:39:29
in reply to nevent1q…ztcw
Author Public Key
npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:29Event JSON
{
"id": "297e09d7bd58b7ae3833bf9fad7ac0daf28dfc7db8e9879c9ad3784a9a9ef4c1",
"pubkey": "fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83",
"created_at": 1686159569,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ea8805956a408611038cfb546cd825ed67687e725ae27aee85fb4c16b69a4b16",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7a6db19893235e2f34fa00b1c056bf7d7ff8db0791a631b5ab6ab403efb88008",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03\n📝 Original message:It's a good idea. It would remove friction from the process and\nassignment is auditable to boot, something I've had difficulty with in\nthe past. Almost every time I see a BIP number I would wonder, is that\nself-assigned (and thus invalid) or has it been assigned by the BIP\neditor.\n\nOn Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for\n\u003e storing and presenting BIPs.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed\n\u003e to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using\n\u003e the authors name and an index as the number) as the mechenism to\n\u003e request number assignment.\n\u003e\n\u003e Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable?\n\u003e\n\u003e (Please do not respond to this message with anything but a strictly\n\u003e directed answer to that question, start a new thread for a different\n\u003e subject. Thanks!)\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "e12152aab2eadb5edf2e20724e2aa6857c114bb05b31ee5981ccb428d99a427ef49f573913b7f6696407aba343f7237c7da4a5f000a883d613bade53f3649c65"
}