To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:09:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201608182109.01522.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113
Precedence: list

On Friday, July 15, 2016 4:46:57 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:52:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Friday, July 15, 2016 3:46:28 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> > > I'm not sure why it is labeled as only "Informational" in the first
> > > place, as BIP9 is part of the consensus logic.
> > 
> > Only by proxy/inclusion from another BIP, such as 68, 112, and 113. In
> > other words, BIP 9 is informational in that it advises how other BIPs
> > might deploy themselves.
> 
> It's a bit of grey area, as indeed, only the BIPs that are actual softforks
> are consensus changes - which employ this mechanism for deployment. But I
> think such an important deployment mechanism, which is supposed to be used
> by all softforks from now onwards, shouldn't just be an informational BIP.

As things stand right now, none of the Authors have commented on changing the 
type. It has been a month, and I am prepared to change the status to Final or 
Active; but I am unclear if your comments were an objection to changing the 
status or not.

Last call: Does anyone mind if I update BIP 9 to Final status?

Luke