* [bitcoin-dev] BIP/Motivation and deployment of consensus rule changes ([soft/hard]forks)
@ 2015-08-25 23:20 Andy Chase
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Andy Chase @ 2015-08-25 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1182 bytes --]
As I understand Github is not to be used for the high-level discussion
of a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts here (is this specified
somewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-0001?).
- I have some concerns about the structure and the wording of this
proposal. I think both the structure and the internal wording can be
slimmed down and simplified
- I also believe the "history lessons" should be trimmed out,
mentioned at best
- There's separate BIP for at least one of the code forks
- BIP-001 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP
number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an
editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed?
- What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standards
track?
- I believe it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed
upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard forks
can use in the future. This will also give us some space to work
through some of the complexities of forks in a definite way.
- Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards
track and a separate Informational BIP?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1504 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2015-08-25 23:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-08-25 23:20 [bitcoin-dev] BIP/Motivation and deployment of consensus rule changes ([soft/hard]forks) Andy Chase
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox