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
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25C4E108C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149056.authsmtp.com (outmail149056.authsmtp.com
[62.13.149.56])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAC8A5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBVNEjwS082584;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:14:45 GMT
Received: from muck (d23-16-73-171.bchsia.telus.net [23.16.73.171])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBVNEeNm036046
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:14:44 GMT
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>
X-Server-Quench: 474db571-b014-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdQMUHFAXAgsB AmMbWVdeUVl7XWc7 aQlPbANDZUlQXgJr
T01BRU1TWkEaZ2J0 U2BDUhp0dwFANnh0 ZkYsWndfCBZ/ckdg
EE5VEXAHZDJldWgd WRVFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYA50 ekkLMFcYTFwQdgAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 23.16.73.171/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP numbers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:14:48 -0000
--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-----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==
=A/jg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--
|
