Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:14:40 -0800
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Marco Pontello <marcopon@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20151231231440.GA5112@muck>
References: <CAE0pACJf=aQFFTwRyWn+8SxS2P-v5FmG77kbC35rq_0p42CDEw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAE0pACJf=aQFFTwRyWn+8SxS2P-v5FmG77kbC35rq_0p42CDEw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP numbers
Precedence: list


--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:42:47PM +0100, Marco Pontello via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> Sorry to ask again but... what's up with the BIP number assignments?
> I thought that it was just more or less a formality, to avoid conflicts a=
nd
> BIP spamming. And that would be perfectly fine.
> But since I see that it's a process that can take months (just looking at
> the PR request list), it seems that something different is going on. Maybe
> it's considered something that give an aura of officiality of sorts? But
> that would make little sense, since that should come eventually with
> subsequents steps (like adding a BIP to the main repo, and eventual
> approvation).
>=20
> Having # 333 assigned to a BIP, should just mean that's easy to refer to a
> particular BIP.
> That seems something that could be done quick and easily.
>=20
> What I'm missing? Probably some historic context?

You ever noticed how actually getting a BIP # assigned is the *last*
thing the better known Bitcoin Core devs do? For instance, look at the
segregated witness draft BIPs.

I think we have problem with peoples' understanding of the Bitcoin
consensus protocol development process being backwards: first write your
protocol specification - the code - and then write the human readable
reference explaining it - the BIP.

Equally, without people actually using that protocol, who cares about
the BIP?


Personally if I were assigning BIP numbers I'd be inclined to say "fuck
it" and only assign BIP numbers to BIPs after they've had significant
adoption... It'd might just cause a lot less headache than the current
system.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000006808135a221edd19be6b5b966c4621c41004d3d719d18b7

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iQGrBAEBCACVBQJWhbbdXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwNjgwODEzNWEyMjFlZGQxOWJlNmI1Yjk2NmM0NjIxYzQx
MDA0ZDNkNzE5ZDE4YjcvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udzcFAf+NVhkrSGfS4riJM/otzdeoyaN
K2LRyN5VdaF+cwbxC8a2owuMQRe429mx2EVMUVzwF7GfK22OC8hus2mZII07xjic
tJbeOjPbY72ADjDZ2xj4YbjdDaVTzFOVXNWyIVyFGmYFH3d5p/iityIfDIxHdOUf
vBUl0SYY9GpRyePml4eV0+aO7+ofk2CbjLfJJphyzWxa07B1j6zy5hZULKcMHpmh
WfNCt3GHqywjdU9b9WxvId0LtvuCPwnTgsgZFAlGyb5f2Su6UBPwdzWE7Zg1TI8D
f5I5GfVw/tRKnoNIKvwXZw8akUwlNqJlifSwFn5nmt6lOhON43Qh/7Lvv97/Ew==
=A/jg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--