Andy Chase [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-05 📝 Original message:Okay for sure yeah writing ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-05
📝 Original message:Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state
of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on
this proposal. I would welcome that.
Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to
move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!
Thanks to all for the discussion!
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> > I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go
> > through a process like this? Just hard forks?
>
> The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks
> should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork
> process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted
> BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher
> requirements.
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150905/9e4999b0/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state
of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on
this proposal. I would welcome that.
Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to
move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!
Thanks to all for the discussion!
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> > I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go
> > through a process like this? Just hard forks?
>
> The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks
> should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork
> process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted
> BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher
> requirements.
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150905/9e4999b0/attachment.html>;