Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:31:12 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160715163112.GA9125@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <201607151608.52063.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201607151608.52063.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113
Precedence: list


--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 progre=
ss to=20
> Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clea=
r on=20
> whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals=
=20
> requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process=
=20
> 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=20
> 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 B=
IP"

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 sta=
tus,
>    but also Final status
> -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status
>=20
> If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs=
 9,=20
> 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I=
 also=20
> need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to (=
and=20
> beyond) Accepted.
>=20
> 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.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXiQ/NAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yagsH/2xlz8aAhmZ3uu7khgIsuwzE
A2YO+xdw62LcxTcBqyMBMTQwDGr/eRcftZo5/ClpAHIyBXLqpCf/ITQfraMVsxih
lThnrqSP0+GJPYyNZFBTwRsVvp2ja1RIbVJrcGktDjve90452VTEyI5pjtmcjJba
3CWU4p9/etMqsnEXLpB+qfztTsOd6yXMHGuKrrm441EG9cE/g3ijxi0bOhNE1sn5
4Ed3fEoxi5xZdnClb06P/FGt8L9vNo0UYKAaK1OF4qbPC8ubSSch18yU8AG25YdA
B9/MFeFtf1qK2siZtusfVlZzsuMqXqm2ggBgd4XjdSR2wEmj75XDeiI5ZHfgdRw=
=gwGj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--