Published on: 2016-01-03T23:31:26+00:00
In a discussion on bitcoin-dev, Luke Dashjr and Tomas debated the efficiency of the specification for version bits. Tomas raised concerns about the unclear assignment of version bits in the specification, suggesting that any implementation proposing a change should be encouraged to choose a free version bit to use. Luke agreed that clarification was necessary in the BIP, or Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, and suggested that the BIP editor assign version bits like BIP numbers themselves. However, he also noted that since the number of deployed forks is low, it may not be necessary to have a more robust system. Rusty, another member of the discussion, offered to fill that role if needed.In an email exchange between Tomas and Luke on December 30, 2015, they discuss the efficiency and implementation of version bits in the context of proposing changes to the Bitcoin network. Tomas expresses concern over the inefficiency of the current system and suggests that clarification is needed for assigning version bits. Luke proposes that the BIP editor assign version bits similarly to BIP numbers. Tomas further suggests that his proposal addresses the danger of forward-incompatible changes and eliminates the possibility of a hard fork, but Luke disagrees. He points out that a hard fork can always occur as it is determined by the economy and not miners. Additionally, changes such as a PoW algorithm change could still lead to further rule changes.In a recent discussion, Tomas expressed his opinion on the inefficiency and bloatiness of a specification which appears to be a reinvention of version bits. The allocation of version bits was not clear from the specification, leading to confusion regarding the implementation of proposed changes. Tomas also addressed the issue of forward-incompatible changes by proposing a solution that prevents hard-forks from occurring, ensuring that every implementation agrees on the active set of rules even if it has not implemented them. This crucial aspect seems to be missing in the version bits proposal.In December 2015, Tomas proposed a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) to reduce developer centralization and minimize the risk of forks introduced by implementations other than bitcoin-core. However, Luke criticized the motivation behind this proposal stating that BIPs are required to have a reference implementation, but it need not necessarily be for Bitcoin Core specifically. He also commented on the specification, saying that it looked like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention of version bits.Tomas van der Wansem has drafted a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) to reduce developer centralization and minimize the risk of forks introduced by implementations other than bitcoin-core. The BIP can be found on GitHub. He believes that the proposal can help in decentralizing the development of the protocol and mitigate the risk of forks. He is requesting a BIP-number if the proposal is considered worthy of discussion.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T17:20:15.539624+00:00