Btc Drak [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03 📝 Original message:It's a good idea. It would ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03
📝 Original message:It's a good idea. It would remove friction from the process and
assignment is auditable to boot, something I've had difficulty with in
the past. Almost every time I see a BIP number I would wonder, is that
self-assigned (and thus invalid) or has it been assigned by the BIP
editor.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for
> storing and presenting BIPs.
>
> I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed
> to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using
> the authors name and an index as the number) as the mechenism to
> request number assignment.
>
> Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable?
>
> (Please do not respond to this message with anything but a strictly
> directed answer to that question, start a new thread for a different
> subject. Thanks!)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev