BIP Final status

BIP Final status
2016-02-08 22:41 ` Peter Todd
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2016-02-08 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev, Stephen Pair, Gavin Andresen, Amir Taaki,
	Mike Hearn, Pieter Wuille

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


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-02-08 22:17 [bitcoin-dev] BIP Final status Luke Dashjr

  2016-02-08 22:57   ` Luke Dashjr
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2016-02-08 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr
  Cc: Stephen Pair, Mike Hearn, Pieter Wuille, Bitcoin Dev, Amir Taaki

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 720 bytes --]

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.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000001ae7ca66e52359d67c407a739fde42b83ecc746d3ab735d

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-02-08 22:41 ` Peter Todd

  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2016-02-08 22:57 UTC ( / )
  To: Peter Todd;  Bitcoin Dev

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