Jean-Paul Kogelman [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2013-10-19 š Original message:>> Having it on the BIP ...
š
Original date posted:2013-10-19
š Original message:>> Having it on the BIP page doesn't make it any more official, I agree, but it does increase its exposure and will hopefully spark some more discussion.
>
> Having it on the BIP page *does* make it more official, at least the way
> we've been using the BIP page, which is to filter out the proposals that
> haven't gotten much support at all. (or maybe are just controversial)
Interesting. The main reason I wrote my proposal was because the only proposal that came close to covering the same area was BIP 39, which at that time had 2 paragraphs of text (although admittedly did link to a text file off site where the draft was being developed). And currently there are 2 proposals that have numbers allocated but are empty (BIP 40 and 41) with no references to the development or discussion.
I appreciate the fact that acceptance of proposals on the BIP page are more strict, but it may be desirable to have the enforcement be more uniform. Also, BIP 38 is gaining more acceptance out in the community (many sites support the import of these keys and a growing number of paper wallet sites / coin / card vendors are offering it as an option), yet it's still missing from the BIP list, which seems to me a bit counter to the arguments given about community acceptance.
> FWIW I myself haven't pushed hard for getting an "official" BIP number
> for my draft NODE_BLOOM BIP, even though I've got support from most of
> the dev team on the pull-request:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2900 I'm probably at the point
> where I could get one assigned - Litecoin for instance has made that
> change - but really I just see that as a formality; that it's still a
> controversial idea is much more relevant.
> In any case I don't see any working code in your email, I'd suggest
> writing some. You're BIP would be much more likely to be accepted if you
> were more involved in wallet development.
Good point. I'm developing my own client (which has the code up and running, with unit tests), but I'm not ready to release it just yet until I've got all the client's alpha features working. Would putting contact information there so people can ask for the relevant code be sufficient until I have my client up on github?
jp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131019/237fe29a/attachment.sig>;
š Original message:>> Having it on the BIP page doesn't make it any more official, I agree, but it does increase its exposure and will hopefully spark some more discussion.
>
> Having it on the BIP page *does* make it more official, at least the way
> we've been using the BIP page, which is to filter out the proposals that
> haven't gotten much support at all. (or maybe are just controversial)
Interesting. The main reason I wrote my proposal was because the only proposal that came close to covering the same area was BIP 39, which at that time had 2 paragraphs of text (although admittedly did link to a text file off site where the draft was being developed). And currently there are 2 proposals that have numbers allocated but are empty (BIP 40 and 41) with no references to the development or discussion.
I appreciate the fact that acceptance of proposals on the BIP page are more strict, but it may be desirable to have the enforcement be more uniform. Also, BIP 38 is gaining more acceptance out in the community (many sites support the import of these keys and a growing number of paper wallet sites / coin / card vendors are offering it as an option), yet it's still missing from the BIP list, which seems to me a bit counter to the arguments given about community acceptance.
> FWIW I myself haven't pushed hard for getting an "official" BIP number
> for my draft NODE_BLOOM BIP, even though I've got support from most of
> the dev team on the pull-request:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2900 I'm probably at the point
> where I could get one assigned - Litecoin for instance has made that
> change - but really I just see that as a formality; that it's still a
> controversial idea is much more relevant.
> In any case I don't see any working code in your email, I'd suggest
> writing some. You're BIP would be much more likely to be accepted if you
> were more involved in wallet development.
Good point. I'm developing my own client (which has the code up and running, with unit tests), but I'm not ready to release it just yet until I've got all the client's alpha features working. Would putting contact information there so people can ask for the relevant code be sufficient until I have my client up on github?
jp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131019/237fe29a/attachment.sig>;