From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:22:39 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.20; x86_64; ; )
References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org>
	<90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
	<npk8gr$shs$1@blaine.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <npk8gr$shs$1@blaine.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201608241822.40882.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final
	Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130
Precedence: list

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:47:08 PM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev 
wrote:
> FWIW, BIP44 also doesn't encode a seed birthday. This needed so that SPV
> wallets do not need to scan from the beginning of the blockchain.
> 
> That doesn't mean BIP44 could not be final. There are some wallets that
> interoperate on that standard and that's fine.

Right. The Status doesn't depend on whether it is a good idea or not, only 
whether or not people are de facto using it.

BIP 2's BIP Comments would have provided a place for Thomas and yourself to 
criticise the BIP, but unfortunately this was too controversial.

> I think BIP43 should be made final as well, if it isn't already.

BIP 43 merely advises other BIPs how they might do things, so it goes into the 
Draft->Active Status flow rather than Draft->Accepted->Final.

Luke