Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B209E67 for ; 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 ; 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 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Marco Falke 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: In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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