Author: Andy Chase 2015-09-12 23:50:32
Published on: 2015-09-12T23:50:32+00:00
A proposal for a new method of accepting Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) has been discussed on the bitco.in forum. The current process involves a two-week period where BIPs are reviewed and voted on by the community. However, the proposed method suggests that BIPs should be reviewed by groups or "committees" who would vote collectively, and delegate their votes to an individual if they wish. Some have suggested that the current two-week process is too constrained and that a longer period of time should be given for open questions to be resolved before final voting takes place. It has also been proposed that a clear definition of "accepted" is needed, and that those who vote "yes" should implement the BIP or pay to have it implemented. One of the main issues with the proposal is how different groups prove their stake. Suggestions have included a "community sample" method for users, and anonymous voting by owning coins. There is also debate around ratios, as the current proposal defines acceptance as least 70% of represented percentage stake in three out of four Bitcoin segments.Another issue raised in the discussion is what constitutes "accepted." The proposal suggests that a BIP could be "greenlighted" by the community, but it's unclear whether this would be binding on client authors. Furthermore, the proposal only sets up a method for determining BIP acceptance, rather than guaranteeing implementation.It's important to understand the difference between BIPs and their implementation in Bitcoin software, such as Bitcoin Core. While consensus rule changes to Bitcoin Core are usually documented as BIPs, there is no guarantee that proposals will be adopted or implemented by the wider ecosystem. The purpose of BIPs is to communicate technical proposals to the bitcoin community, but the workflow of "Accepted" and "Rejected" needs to be adjusted as it does not define who is accepting or rejecting what.The states of "Accepted" and "Rejected" are easy for consensus critical changes, but difficult for non-consensus issues such as privacy standards. Something is a standard only when it becomes a standard by virtue of having become a standard. Peer review pressure is likely to act as the best filtering mechanism for proposals.The Bitcoin protocol has a draft for BIP65 but it has not been proposed to the community yet, so acceptance is still only a possibility. However, it is likely to be accepted because service providers are eagerly waiting for deployment. While Bitcoin Core has a major influence on adoption of a BIP, it is not the only implementation and the community at large will decide if it becomes widely adopted.In summary, some aspects of BIP-1 need polishing, especially around "workflow states," but committees should not be introduced into the process. Anyone can submit a proposal and the state of the proposal can be "Draft" or "Withdrawn," and downstream implementers should not attempt to write code until the proposer is happy with the final text.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T22:04:49.765594+00:00