Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.44;
	envelope-from=benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com>
	<201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:59:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOoPuRbNUQ6rxbHw3hTPVDh5KfT1JLfEaFORwYxAphEuRpLP=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Cordes <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfe93fe35ea2704e9468f35
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal
Precedence: list

--047d7bfe93fe35ea2704e9468f35
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I believe a better solution would to use a github clone such as gitlab,
which sits on top of the git repo, and allows for custom code around the
BIP process. Potentially one could even build Bitcoin into such a BIP
system. If somebody wants to support a BIP he donates Bitcoins to that
proposal. Somebody who actually implements the BIP can receive some percent
of the bounty, while some percentage goes to the Bitcoin foundation. Via
such a platform one could create assurance contracts to kickstart BIP
developments or Bitcoin extensions (public infrastructure which is not part
of the core, such as opensourced exchanges).


On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
>
> Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular
> and
> formal form.
>
> > 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git
> repo
> > or be auto updated from the git repo?
>
> Since it's the same format, I'd keep it up there, maybe with a link to the
> git
> repo on the main BIP index wiki page.
>
> > 3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really be
> > considered a BIP?
>
> It's a hardforking protocol change, so IMO yes.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most
> from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

--047d7bfe93fe35ea2704e9468f35
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px=
">I believe a better solution would to use a github clone such as gitlab, w=
hich sits on top of the git repo, and allows for custom code around the BIP=
 process. Potentially one could even build Bitcoin into such a BIP system. =
If somebody wants to support a BIP he donates Bitcoins to that proposal. So=
mebody who actually implements the BIP can receive some percent of the boun=
ty, while some percentage goes to the Bitcoin foundation. Via such a platfo=
rm one could create assurance contracts to kickstart BIP developments or Bi=
tcoin extensions (public infrastructure which is not part of the core, such=
 as opensourced exchanges).</span><br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon,=
 Oct 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Luke-Jr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:l=
uke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman=
 wrote:<br>
&gt; 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)=
?<br>
<br>
</div>Probably wouldn&#39;t hurt, but it&#39;d likely need a rewrite in a m=
ore modular and<br>
formal form.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt; 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git =
repo<br>
&gt; or be auto updated from the git repo?<br>
<br>
</div>Since it&#39;s the same format, I&#39;d keep it up there, maybe with =
a link to the git<br>
repo on the main BIP index wiki page.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt; 3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really=
 be<br>
&gt; considered a BIP?<br>
<br>
</div>It&#39;s a hardforking protocol change, so IMO yes.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
October Webinars: Code for Performance<br>
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.<br>
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most fr=
om<br>
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register &g=
t;<br>
</div><a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D60135991&a=
mp;iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.ne=
t/gampad/clk?id=3D60135991&amp;iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">___________________________________=
____________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7bfe93fe35ea2704e9468f35--