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
|
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 8B209E67
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:12:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA2618A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:12:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265::71])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8205838A0071;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:11:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:180214:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::mP5bezvcTfA4YIfj:aWK63
X-Hashcash: 1:25:180214:falke.marco@gmail.com::Q1gU0UWtL1N4PKpv:b6gXu
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Marco Falke <falke.marco@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:11:42 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.15.1-gentoo; KDE/4.14.37; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@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: <201802142211.44293.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried
deployments
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, 14 Feb 2018 22:12:33 -0000
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
That being said, I'm also okay with just adding an Annex to the original
softfork/hardfork BIP describing each shortcut. It just seems annoying to have
two BIPs for every protocol change: one for the change itself, and then
another for implementation-specific shortcuts taken.
Luke
|
