Author: Andy Chase 2015-09-10 01:21:41
Published on: 2015-09-10T01:21:41+00:00
The context is a discussion about the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) and the process for accepting them. The author of the proposal is responding to Btc Drak's comments and clarifies that his proposal is not about getting BIPs published but rather about developing a process for determining their acceptance. They also note that their proposal is not client-specific, but a tool for gathering meaningful information to guide decisions. Btc Drak explains that BIPs are mini-white papers on specific topics with reference implementations attached, and they can be consensus-critical or not. They clarify that the process for publishing BIPs is fairly loose and anyone can make a proposal, so long as it's not obviously off-topic or nonsensical. Additionally, they explain that the workflow of ACCEPTED/REJECTED in BIP-1 does not define who is accepting and rejecting what and misses much of the reality of the process in the real world. Btc Drak suggests adjusting the workflow states and notes that draft would suggest it's a work in progress, but the proposal is "complete" when the proposer is happy with the final text. Downstream implementers should not attempt to write code until the proposal has been finalized by the authors. They also suggest that "accepted" and "rejected" is difficult for some proposals, such as privacy standards. Btc Drak argues against introducing committees to the process, stating that the state of a BIP is determined by factors outside of any particular individual's or groups' purview. They suggest that peer review pressure is likely to act as the best filtering mechanism. Overall, Btc Drak believes that some aspects of BIP-1 could do with polishing, especially around the "workflow states," but not to introduce any committees to the process.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T22:04:03.967035+00:00