BIP Final status

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/314 proposes updating the status of many Accepted BIPs to Final:

BIP 11: M-of-N Standard Transactions BIP 14: Protocol Version and User Agent BIP 21: URI Scheme BIP 22: getblocktemplate - Fundamentals BIP 23: getblocktemplate - Pooled Mining BIP 31: Pong message BIP 32: Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase BIP 35: mempool message BIP 37: Connection Bloom filtering BIP 65: OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY

This PR has been open for a week, and I plan to merge it within the next week unless there are objections.

Additionally, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/315 proposes to upgrade five additional from Draft to Final status, and preferably needs ACKs from the champions of the BIPs:

BIP 50: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem, by Gavin Andresen
BIP 60: Fixed Length "version" Message (Relay-Transactions Field), by Amir
        Taaki
BIP 64: getutxo message, by Mike Hearn
BIP 66: Strict DER signatures, by Pieter Wuille
BIP 73: Use "Accept" header for response type negotiation with Payment Request
        URLs, by Stephen Pair

Thanks,

Luke

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:17:55PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> Additionally, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/315 proposes to upgrade
> five additional from Draft to Final status, and preferably needs ACKs from the
> champions of the BIPs:
>
> BIP 50: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem, by Gavin Andresen

It may be good to update BIP 50 with the new information that calling it a "hard fork" misses subtleties about what happened during that fork. In particular, 0.7 rejection of the chain was non-deterministic, based on having seen a re-org in a specific way.

On Monday, February 08, 2016 10:41:00 PM Peter Todd wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:17:55PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Additionally, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/315 proposes to
> > upgrade five additional from Draft to Final status, and preferably needs
> > ACKs from the champions of the BIPs:
> >
> > BIP 50: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem, by Gavin Andresen
>
> It may be good to update BIP 50 with the new information that calling it
> a "hard fork" misses subtleties about what happened during that fork. In
> particular, 0.7 rejection of the chain was non-deterministic, based on
> having seen a re-org in a specific way.

I agree BIP 50 could use some rephrasing, but the May 2013 change was definitely a hardfork, despite the problems with the pre-March protocol.

Luke