From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>
In-Reply-To: <201512302347.17609.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <1451493317.3215816.479282618.4F666D71@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<201512301710.27154.luke@dashjr.org>
	<1451499779.3919416.479357794.2C21BFA1@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<201512302347.17609.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:01:26 +1030
Message-ID: <878u46s0j5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Decentralized Improvement Proposals
Precedence: list

Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 6:22:59 PM Tomas wrote:
>> > 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?
>
> That should probably be clarified in the BIP, I agree. Perhaps it ought to be 
> assigned the same as BIP numbers themselves, by the BIP editor? (Although as a 
> limited resource, maybe that's not the best solution.)

I thought about it, but it's subject to change.  Frankly, the number of
deployed forks is low enough that they can sort it out themselves.  If
we need something more robust, I'm happy to fill that role.

Cheers,
Rusty.