Amir Taaki [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-03-02 📝 Original message:Hi, I got sent this BIP: ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-03-02
📝 Original message:Hi,
I got sent this BIP:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool
What is your opinion on this? Is it BIP related?
It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol proposal. My understanding of BIPs is that
they apply across bitcoin implementations and largely focus on the most generic use-cases
(like the URIs) and the protocol. Things which affect all clients, and allow the system to function
as a united whole.
That BIPs especially focus on the protocol, and that something like this is outside the mandate
of the BIP process.
For instance, we could imagine a future scenario. Bitcoin-Qt is currently based off bitcoind's
codebase. However wumpus built the client in mind with an abstraction layer to enable multiple
backends (a good design). In our hypothetical situation, there are 3 different backend codebases
using Bitcoin-Qt. I do not think a proposal to mandate a changing to Bitcoin-Qt's abstraction
layer or a change in the UI placement would be appropriate BIP material.
OTOH, many clients do need to make use of URIs and the BIP process is totally correct, as it
standardises a behaviour which is needed for interoperability of the network and community.
Thoughts?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120302/fede72ef/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Hi,
I got sent this BIP:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool
What is your opinion on this? Is it BIP related?
It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol proposal. My understanding of BIPs is that
they apply across bitcoin implementations and largely focus on the most generic use-cases
(like the URIs) and the protocol. Things which affect all clients, and allow the system to function
as a united whole.
That BIPs especially focus on the protocol, and that something like this is outside the mandate
of the BIP process.
For instance, we could imagine a future scenario. Bitcoin-Qt is currently based off bitcoind's
codebase. However wumpus built the client in mind with an abstraction layer to enable multiple
backends (a good design). In our hypothetical situation, there are 3 different backend codebases
using Bitcoin-Qt. I do not think a proposal to mandate a changing to Bitcoin-Qt's abstraction
layer or a change in the UI placement would be appropriate BIP material.
OTOH, many clients do need to make use of URIs and the BIP process is totally correct, as it
standardises a behaviour which is needed for interoperability of the network and community.
Thoughts?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120302/fede72ef/attachment.html>;