Published on: 2016-01-12T00:09:46+00:00
In an email exchange regarding Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 46, Luke Dashjr noticed that it was missing from the repository but had apparently been self-assigned by Tier Nolan in a previous email. Dashjr suggested that if the proposal had been officially assigned or if Nolan was still interested in pursuing it, it would make sense to keep it at BIP 46. However, Nolan responded saying that he was never officially assigned any number for the proposal and subsequent changes made the BIP obsolete.Dashjr then recommended marking the number as nonassignable to prevent confusion with archive searches, assuming that new BIP numbers would be greater than 100 anyway. He also acknowledged that he should not have used a number in the original git branch before being officially assigned it.Luke has been asked to take over as the BIP editor responsible for assigning BIP numbers. Before starting his work, he wants to ensure that there is no overlapping in the assignment of BIPs. He has requested anyone who has been assigned a BIP number or has any relevant information to respond within 24 hours if possible.Luke provided specific details about missing and soft-assigned BIPs. BIP 46 is missing from the repository but was self-soft-assigned by Tier Nolan. It seems logical to keep it at BIP 46. BIPs 80 and 81 are part of an open pull request, and it's unclear whether they were formally assigned or not. BIP 82 is officially assigned and pending, but it falls outside the scope of BIPs since it does not deal with Bitcoin. Luke suggests Justus to move it to the SLIP standard, but he will honor this assignment unless informed otherwise.BIP 100 is missing from the repository, and Luke is unsure if it was ever properly assigned. Considering that the 10x block has mostly been used for similar proposals and BIP 100 is well-established as "BIP 100," it seems logical to make this its official assignment. BIP 104 is missing from the repository, and Luke is unsure about its status. There is no actual specification in the PDF.BIP 109 was soft-assigned, but it does not fit with the rest of 10x. Luke is inclined to give it a new number outside that range unless there are objections. BIP 122 is missing from the repository, and it was self-soft-assigned by Chris Priest for "ScaleNet." There are concerns about whether testnets are appropriate for standardization, but it seems reasonable to assign it a BIP number if Chris wishes to further pursue the idea and add an actual specification to the draft.Luke has requested anyone aware of any other BIP assignments, except for BIPs 82 and 109, and those appearing in the https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository at present, to reply to his message indicating the status of such BIPs and their assigned numbers.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T17:32:09.265757+00:00