My mistake, apologies all.
- I honestly thought everyone just took the next available number and published up their BIP's.
And, I see you have something of a master list.
As a suggestion, would it be worth considering linking to some of that information in the list welcome email? Web search is not always your friend for locating everything relevant.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Sent: Sunday, 24 December 2017 6:21:24 PM
To: Damian Williamson
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In Blocks
Sent: Sunday, 24 December 2017 6:21:24 PM
To: Damian Williamson
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In Blocks
BIP 177 is NOT assigned. Do not self-assign BIP numbers!
Please read BIP 2:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
Luke
On Sunday 24 December 2017 2:57:38 AM Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In
> Blocks
>
>
> This BIP proposes to address the issue of transactional reliability in
> Bitcoin, where valid transactions may be stuck in the mempool for extended
> periods.
>
>
> There are two key issues to be resolved:
>
>
> 1. The current transaction bandwidth limit.
> 2. The current ad-hoc methods of including transactions in blocks
> resulting in variable and confusing confirmation times for valid
> transactions, including transactions with a valid fee that may never
> confirm.
>
>
> It is important with any change to protect the value of fees as these will
> eventually be the only payment that miners receive. Rather than an auction
> model for limited bandwidth, the proposal results in a stable fee for
> priority service auction model.
>
>
> I will post the full proposal up on to my blog in the coming days and,
> re-review incorporating feedback that I have received on and off thread.
> It would not be true to suggest that all feedback received has been
> entirely positive although, most of it has been constructive.
>
>
> The previous threads for this BIP are available here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/subje
> ct.html
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Williamson
Please read BIP 2:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
 |
github.com
Abstract. A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) is a design document providing information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bitcoin or its ...
|
|
Luke
On Sunday 24 December 2017 2:57:38 AM Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In
> Blocks
>
>
> This BIP proposes to address the issue of transactional reliability in
> Bitcoin, where valid transactions may be stuck in the mempool for extended
> periods.
>
>
> There are two key issues to be resolved:
>
>
> 1. The current transaction bandwidth limit.
> 2. The current ad-hoc methods of including transactions in blocks
> resulting in variable and confusing confirmation times for valid
> transactions, including transactions with a valid fee that may never
> confirm.
>
>
> It is important with any change to protect the value of fees as these will
> eventually be the only payment that miners receive. Rather than an auction
> model for limited bandwidth, the proposal results in a stable fee for
> priority service auction model.
>
>
> I will post the full proposal up on to my blog in the coming days and,
> re-review incorporating feedback that I have received on and off thread.
> It would not be true to suggest that all feedback received has been
> entirely positive although, most of it has been constructive.
>
>
> The previous threads for this BIP are available here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/subje
> ct.html
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Williamson