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 > Peter Todd > Greg Maxwell > Rusty Russell ACK "Final" status. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org