Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0775F1281 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:23:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 812C7155 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:23:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6692032D for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:22:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=uHJp+JU0xWEsScN LPTxyKbIQzFE=; b=ReAfSkq187KhLwYHL1TWiYWpjTmJQqsCqBhf9v3SY14do3y flyyErcKdOwDpcjuYYIfw+6ygL/J8Wcjle+e8ocS4eesN+L0ogUfyLRQ7m8kMYom gwksKmZTI5ahpO+KXth9MS/JwyT3Ky1gr2YQLkXU8AGvLtAkQgs05aR7C0F8= Received: by web1.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 83E61AEC9A2; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:22:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1451499779.3919416.479357794.2C21BFA1@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: +apFk7tIedZyEThelZgjXPD9UmwbBvkdO17s6+yGvnfK 1451499779 From: Tomas To: Luke Dashjr , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-a93c17cb In-Reply-To: <201512301710.27154.luke@dashjr.org> References: <1451493317.3215816.479282618.4F666D71@webmail.messagingengine.com> <201512301710.27154.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:22:59 +0100 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:35:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Decentralized Improvement Proposals X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:23:01 -0000 > The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention > of > version bits. The actual assignment of version bits isn't clear from the specification. Are you saying that any implementation that wants to propose a change is encouraged to pick a free version bit and use it? Furthermore, my proposal addresses the danger of forward-incompatible changes; a hard-fork can no longer occur as every implementation will agree on the active the set of rules even if it has not implemented them. This seems to be lacking in the version bits proposal. Tomas