Published on: 2015-07-24T02:26:13+00:00
On July 23, 2015, Kalle Rosenbaum introduced a Proof of Payment-enabled fork of the Mycelium Bitcoin wallet. The source code for this version can be found on GitHub at https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/wallet, and the validating code for the server is hosted at https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/. To demonstrate the functionality, a demo site using the server code is accessible at http://www.rosenbaum.se:8080/, and a video showcasing the demo is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euzZcoCilhc. Additionally, Mycelium binaries are provided on the demo site.Peter Todd responded to the announcement by encouraging users to utilize the new fork and provide feedback. He emphasized that BIP numbers will be assigned even for potentially risky or poorly designed standards once they gain real-world adoption. However, he highlighted the importance of avoiding assigning numbers to unused items, particularly those that lack consensus.Kalle Rosenbaum suggested amending the "BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow" section of BIP0001. The proposed clause stipulates that if a BIP editor is unable to handle a BIP within a week, they should notify the author within that same week with an estimated timeline for handling it. Unfortunately, there has been no response from BIP editor Gregory Maxwell regarding Kalle's request for a BIP number allocation for Proof of Payment. In response, Peter Todd requested an implementation of Kalle's proposed BIP, as the process prioritizes running code, preferably in production. Kalle has provided links to the PoP-enabled fork of Mycelium and the server (validating code) on Github, along with a demo site and video.In an email to the bitcoin-dev mailing list on July 23, 2015, a member of the Bitcoin development community suggested including a clause in BIP0001. This clause would require BIP editors to notify authors if they are unable to handle a BIP within a week and provide an estimated timeline for handling it. The author of the email was seeking BIP numbers for Proof of Payment but had not received any response from BIP editor Gregory Maxwell, despite requesting it and CCing the bitcoin-dev list. In response to the email, someone inquired about the implementation of the proposed BIP. They emphasized that running code is preferred for non-consensus BIPs and expressed concern about the number of BIPs significantly exceeding the number of actual standards being used. The email was signed with a PGP signature.The author of the email suggests including a clause in the "BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow" section of BIP0001. This clause would require BIP editors to notify authors if they are unable to handle a BIP within one or two weeks and provide an estimated timeline for handling it. The author's intention is to secure BIP numbers for Proof of Payment, but no response has been received from BIP editor Gregory Maxwell. The author also highlights the existence of multiple BIP proposals without a clear process for allocation and inclusion in the bips repository. They propose that authors should receive a response from the BIP editor when requesting a number, and if a BIP is disapproved, the author should be notified within a reasonable and predictable timeframe.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T14:29:31.968785+00:00