Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f170.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55002AD9.2060006@thomaskerin.io>
References: <55002AD9.2060006@thomaskerin.io>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:16:13 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR_nA5p+6+wgJGLddxjswxdqqzOsPg5=s0GNEiEAYFxnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for standard multi-signature P2SH
	addresses
Precedence: list

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io> wrote:
> I used BIP0090 as a place-holder, but I would like to request a BIP number
> for this now.

We have had repeated problems in the past with people working on and
circulating prior draft proposals squatting on each others numbers,
and each demanding access to the same numbers. As a matter of
procedure I will not assign squatted numbers, but also discussion
should come in advance of number assignment; general subject here
seems reasonable but many proposals are withdrawn by the party
tendering them after further discussion shows the effort to be without
public interest or actually subsumed by other functionality. :)

Proposals should not be called "BIP[nn]" until they're actually a BIP.
  Feel free to call it bip-kerin-multisignature or any other
placeholder name that won't be confused with a finished BIP for
drafting.

If there is any public documentation on the process which caused you
specific confusion, please feel free to point me at it and I'll be
sure to fix it! Sorry for any confusion there.