MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: asperous2@gmail.com
From: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:20:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAxp-m9R+cOJ6nn9PeKWkj7zops-8+xKzrmzZN6qUc6ZD9tQrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP/Motivation and deployment of consensus rule
	changes ([soft/hard]forks)
Precedence: list

--001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

As I understand Github is not to be used for the high-level discussion
of a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts here (is this specified
somewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-0001?).

-   I have some concerns about the structure and the wording of this
    proposal. I think both the structure and the internal wording can be
    slimmed down and simplified
    -   I also believe the "history lessons" should be trimmed out,
        mentioned at best
    -   There's separate BIP for at least one of the code forks
-   BIP-001 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP
    number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an
    editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed?
-   What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standards
    track?
    -   I believe it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed
        upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard forks
        can use in the future. This will also give us some space to work
        through some of the complexities of forks in a definite way.
    -   Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards
        track and a separate Informational BIP?

--001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>As I understand Github is not to be used for the=
 high-level discussion</div><div>of a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts =
here (is this specified</div><div>somewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-000=
1?).</div><div><br></div><div>- =C2=A0 I have some concerns about the struc=
ture and the wording of this</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 proposal. I think both=
 the structure and the internal wording can be</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 slim=
med down and simplified</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 I also believe the=
 &quot;history lessons&quot; should be trimmed out,</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0=
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 mentioned at best</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 There&#39=
;s separate BIP for at least one of the code forks</div><div>- =C2=A0 BIP-0=
01 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP</div><div>=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an=
</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed?</div><div=
>- =C2=A0 What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standard=
s</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 track?</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 I believe=
 it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0=
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard fork=
s</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 can use in the future. This will al=
so give us some space to work</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 through=
 some of the complexities of forks in a definite way.</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 - =C2=A0 Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards<=
/div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 track and a separate Informational BI=
P?</div><div><br></div></div></div>

--001a113eb458ea022b051e2afb93--