Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-08-18 📝 Original message:On Friday, July 15, 2016 ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-08-18
📝 Original message:On Friday, July 15, 2016 4:46:57 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:52:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Friday, July 15, 2016 3:46:28 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> > > I'm not sure why it is labeled as only "Informational" in the first
> > > place, as BIP9 is part of the consensus logic.
> >
> > Only by proxy/inclusion from another BIP, such as 68, 112, and 113. In
> > other words, BIP 9 is informational in that it advises how other BIPs
> > might deploy themselves.
>
> It's a bit of grey area, as indeed, only the BIPs that are actual softforks
> are consensus changes - which employ this mechanism for deployment. But I
> think such an important deployment mechanism, which is supposed to be used
> by all softforks from now onwards, shouldn't just be an informational BIP.
As things stand right now, none of the Authors have commented on changing the
type. It has been a month, and I am prepared to change the status to Final or
Active; but I am unclear if your comments were an objection to changing the
status or not.
Last call: Does anyone mind if I update BIP 9 to Final status?
Luke
📝 Original message:On Friday, July 15, 2016 4:46:57 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:52:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Friday, July 15, 2016 3:46:28 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> > > I'm not sure why it is labeled as only "Informational" in the first
> > > place, as BIP9 is part of the consensus logic.
> >
> > Only by proxy/inclusion from another BIP, such as 68, 112, and 113. In
> > other words, BIP 9 is informational in that it advises how other BIPs
> > might deploy themselves.
>
> It's a bit of grey area, as indeed, only the BIPs that are actual softforks
> are consensus changes - which employ this mechanism for deployment. But I
> think such an important deployment mechanism, which is supposed to be used
> by all softforks from now onwards, shouldn't just be an informational BIP.
As things stand right now, none of the Authors have commented on changing the
type. It has been a month, and I am prepared to change the status to Final or
Active; but I am unclear if your comments were an objection to changing the
status or not.
Last call: Does anyone mind if I update BIP 9 to Final status?
Luke