From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:31:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160715163112.GA9125@fedora-21-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201607151608.52063.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2177 bytes --]
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 04:08:51PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should progress to
> Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear on
> whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals
> requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process
> BIPs. Background of this discussion is at:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413
> (Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing this
> topic to the mailing list)
As of writing the text of BIP68 says:
'This BIP is to be deployed by "versionbits" BIP9 using bit 0.'
Essentially including BIP9 as part of the BIP68 standard; BIP68 could have
equally been written by including some or all of the text of BIP9. If it had
done that, that text would be part of a "Standard BIP" rather than
"Informational BIP", thus I'll argue that BIP9 should also be a "Standard BIP"
Also, note that if we ever modified BIP9, we'd most likely do so with a new
BIP, and in soft-forks using that new standard, would refer to the new BIP #.
> Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that:
> - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9
> -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class
> - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully
> -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted status,
> but also Final status
> -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status
>
> If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs 9,
> 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I also
> need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to (and
> beyond) Accepted.
>
> BIP 9: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
> Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
> Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
> Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
ACK "Final" status.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-15 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-15 16:08 Luke Dashjr
2016-07-15 16:31 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2016-08-18 21:09 Luke Dashjr
[not found] <201607151531.00058.luke@dashjr.org>
2016-08-18 23:05 ` Btc Drak
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160715163112.GA9125@fedora-21-dvm \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox