blob: d0a6d492b6b58913661f086dd769154255443287 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1Xeco9-0002Ti-78
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:37:01 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dashjr.org
designates 192.3.11.21 as permitted sender)
client-ip=192.3.11.21; envelope-from=luke@dashjr.org;
helo=zinan.dashjr.org;
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Xeco7-0007kV-Ab for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:37:01 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C42421080213;
Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:36:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:36:51 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.15.5-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CA+s+GJApfj5OAxGyHG9CsmRHTpAQBgC44iU2U99LwNGNZDATBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJApfj5OAxGyHG9CsmRHTpAQBgC44iU2U99LwNGNZDATBw@mail.gmail.com>
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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201410160436.52259.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Xeco7-0007kV-Ab
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP status changes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:37:01 -0000
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:47:18 AM Wladimir wrote:
> These BIPs should go to Final state - they are implemented all over
> the place, and are thus entirely fixed in place now. Any changes would
> require a new BIP as amandment:
>
> - BIP 14 (BIP Protocol Version and User Agent)
ACK
> - BIP 21 (URI Scheme)
ACK
> - BIP 22 (getblocktemplate - Fundamentals)
ACK
> - BIP 31 (Pong Message)
ACK
> - BIP 34 (Block v2, Height in coinbase)
ACK
> - BIP 35 (mempool message)
ACK
> - BIP 37 (Bloom filtering)
>
> Let me know if you (don't) agree.
Shouldn't we be doing this in a GitHub PR rather than spamming up the ML?
Luke
|
