Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113
4 messages, 15 Jul to 18 Aug 2016. Started by Luke Dashjr.
Luke Dashjr (2), Peter Todd, Btc Drak
Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should progress to
Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear on
whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals
requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process
BIPs. Background of this discussion is at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413
(Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing this
topic to the mailing list)
Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that: - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9 -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted status, but also Final status -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status
If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs 9, 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I also need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to (and beyond) Accepted.
BIP 9: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com•au>
BIP 68: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail•com>
kinoshitajona <kinoshitajona@gmail•com>
BIP 112: BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com>
BIP 113: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io>
Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 04:08:51PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should progress to > Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear on > whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals > requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process > BIPs. Background of this discussion is at: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413 > (Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing this > topic to the mailing list)
As of writing the text of BIP68 says:
'This BIP is to be deployed by "versionbits" BIP9 using bit 0.'
Essentially including BIP9 as part of the BIP68 standard; BIP68 could have equally been written by including some or all of the text of BIP9. If it had done that, that text would be part of a "Standard BIP" rather than "Informational BIP", thus I'll argue that BIP9 should also be a "Standard BIP"
Also, note that if we ever modified BIP9, we'd most likely do so with a new BIP, and in soft-forks using that new standard, would refer to the new BIP #.
Quoted text (17 lines)
> Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that: > - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9 > -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class > - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully > -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted status, > but also Final status > -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status > > If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs 9, > 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I also > need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to (and > beyond) Accepted. > > BIP 9: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com> > Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> > Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph•org> > Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com•au>
ACK "Final" status.
On Friday, July 15, 2016 4:46:57 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
Quoted text (13 lines)
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:52:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 3:46:28 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > > I'm not sure why it is labeled as only "Informational" in the first > > > place, as BIP9 is part of the consensus logic. > > > > Only by proxy/inclusion from another BIP, such as 68, 112, and 113. In > > other words, BIP 9 is informational in that it advises how other BIPs > > might deploy themselves. > > It's a bit of grey area, as indeed, only the BIPs that are actual softforks > are consensus changes - which employ this mechanism for deployment. But I > think such an important deployment mechanism, which is supposed to be used > by all softforks from now onwards, shouldn't just be an informational BIP.
As things stand right now, none of the Authors have commented on changing the type. It has been a month, and I am prepared to change the status to Final or Active; but I am unclear if your comments were an objection to changing the status or not.
Last call: Does anyone mind if I update BIP 9 to Final status?
Luke
Fine by me to update BIP68 and BIP112 to Final status. The forks have activated.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
Quoted text (46 lines)
> Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should > progress to > Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear > on > whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals > requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process > BIPs. Background of this discussion is at: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413 > (Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing > this > topic to the mailing list) > > Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that: > - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9 > -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class > - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully > -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted > status, > but also Final status > -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status > > If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs > 9, > 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I > also > need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to > (and > beyond) Accepted. > > BIP 9: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com> > Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> > Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph•org> > Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com•au> > > BIP 68: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org> > BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com> > Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail•com> > kinoshitajona <kinoshitajona@gmail•com> > > BIP 112: BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com> > Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org> > Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com> > > BIP 113: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io> > Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org> >