Dave Scotese [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-02-02 📝 Original message:The section that starts ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-02-02
📝 Original message:The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release"
addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written
there. I'll take a stab at what it means:
Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided their own
implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BIPs?
- While there is only one such application, its UI will be the obvious
standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.
- Any more than a single such application will benefit from the
coordination encouraged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.
"To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP,
and neither should be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to
me as "To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated
metrics. Any influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from
their intended use." This can be expanded with a simple example: "In other
words, a BIP having the status 'Rejected' is no reason not to write
additional comments about it. Likewise, overwhelming support for a BIP in
its comments section doesn't change the requirements for the 'Accepted' or
'Active' status."
Since the Bitcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I
think the author of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet
locations for comments. So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be
"link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin
Wiki)". Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to
particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:
- The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish. The
Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on
> the
> Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on
> them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.
>
>
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
>
> I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with
> BIP
> 123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any
> objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be
> reached.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com>; and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net>; (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com>; which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>;.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160201/b5dacb35/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release"
addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written
there. I'll take a stab at what it means:
Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided their own
implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BIPs?
- While there is only one such application, its UI will be the obvious
standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.
- Any more than a single such application will benefit from the
coordination encouraged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.
"To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP,
and neither should be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to
me as "To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated
metrics. Any influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from
their intended use." This can be expanded with a simple example: "In other
words, a BIP having the status 'Rejected' is no reason not to write
additional comments about it. Likewise, overwhelming support for a BIP in
its comments section doesn't change the requirements for the 'Accepted' or
'Active' status."
Since the Bitcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I
think the author of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet
locations for comments. So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be
"link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin
Wiki)". Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to
particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:
- The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish. The
Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on
> the
> Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on
> them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.
>
>
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
>
> I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with
> BIP
> 123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any
> objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be
> reached.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com>; and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net>; (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com>; which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>;.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160201/b5dacb35/attachment.html>;