1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1RGFAc-00066J-3W
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:17:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-gx0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-gx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RGFAb-00005C-3H
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:17:50 +0000
Received: by ggnq1 with SMTP id q1so1149218ggn.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.60.73 with SMTP id o9mr5857642fah.18.1318965463402; Tue,
18 Oct 2011 12:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.24.229 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:17:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0xjz2bO0PKX7VBka_j_MpGky9scHhkyM=b9MbtPAwx=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RGFAb-00005C-3H
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:17:50 -0000
Amir started the "get more formal about changes to bitcoin" ball
rolling by creating BIP 0001, starting from the Python "PEP" /
BitTorrent "BEP" processes:
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=3DBIP_0001
The idea is to use BIPs for changes that may or will affect every
bitcoin implementation (not to use them for proposed changes to one
particular implementation).
I'd like to propose some minor changes to the process:
=95 I propose that BIPs be wiki pages, with a social convention that the
Author gets final word if any editing wars break out.
=95 If he's willing, I propose that Amir take the role of BIP editor.
=95 I think bitcoin is still too small to have a specialized
"bitcoin-ideas" mailing list; I propose that new potential BIPs be
discussed either here or on the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
What do y'all think?
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
|
