MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <201802142211.44293.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201802142211.44293.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:20:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRBCCsosSxN9UDXmPoO3fJX1etbwtsOGd5BfkZTAo4wjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried
	deployments
Precedence: list

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2018 10:01:46 PM Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should be assigned a
>> label "soft fork" or "hard fork". However, I think the differentiation
>> into soft fork or hard fork should not be made for BIPs that document
>> buried deployments. In contrast to soft forks and hard forks, buried
>> deployments do not require community and miner coordination for a safe
>> deployment.
>
> They also do not require software coordination. Therefore, why should there be
> BIPs at all? Seems to me that we should instead add these documents to
> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/docs

In that sense, no but they help people understand the system (e.g. so
they don't go look at implementations and confuse that the activations
they expect are simply not there); and they aid other implementations
in understanding what other people have already analyzed and concluded
was safe. You could certainly get an analysis wrong for one of these
things.