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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B917308
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:23:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD6826E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:23:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C27138AB729;
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:22:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160824:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::iriByZoZCuauTeLw:atlaF
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160824:andreas@schildbach.de::bvf/XsDq6i3utI2f:bT9=p
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>
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="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201608241822.40882.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC
autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:23:26 -0000
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
|
