Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B917308 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:23:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD6826E for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C27138AB729; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:22:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160824:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::iriByZoZCuauTeLw:atlaF X-Hashcash: 1:25:160824:andreas@schildbach.de::bvf/XsDq6i3utI2f:bT9=p From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:22:39 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.20; x86_64; ; ) References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org> <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org> <npk8gr$shs$1@blaine.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <npk8gr$shs$1@blaine.gmane.org> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201608241822.40882.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:23:26 -0000 On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:47:08 PM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > FWIW, BIP44 also doesn't encode a seed birthday. This needed so that SPV > wallets do not need to scan from the beginning of the blockchain. > > That doesn't mean BIP44 could not be final. There are some wallets that > interoperate on that standard and that's fine. Right. The Status doesn't depend on whether it is a good idea or not, only whether or not people are de facto using it. BIP 2's BIP Comments would have provided a place for Thomas and yourself to criticise the BIP, but unfortunately this was too controversial. > I think BIP43 should be made final as well, if it isn't already. BIP 43 merely advises other BIPs how they might do things, so it goes into the Draft->Active Status flow rather than Draft->Accepted->Final. Luke