BIP/Motivation and deployment of consensus rule changes ([soft/hard]forks)

BIP/Motivation and deployment of consensus rule changes ([soft/hard]forks)
From: Andy Chase @ 2015-08-25 23:20 UTC ( / )
  To: bitcoin-dev



As I understand Github is not to be used for the high-level discussion
of a draft BIP so I will post my thoughts here (is this specified
somewhere? Can we specify this in BIP-0001?).

-   I have some concerns about the structure and the wording of this
    proposal. I think both the structure and the internal wording can be
    slimmed down and simplified
    -   I also believe the "history lessons" should be trimmed out,
        mentioned at best
    -   There's separate BIP for at least one of the code forks
-   BIP-001 specifies that BIP proposals should not be given a BIP
    number until after they have been spelled checked and approved by an
    editor. Greg Maxwell: was this followed?
-   What kind of proposal is this? Informational, Process or Standards
    track?
    -   I believe it should be Standards Track. Include the proposed
        upgrade path as a patch into core as a module that hard forks
        can use in the future. This will also give us some space to work
        through some of the complexities of forks in a definite way.
    -   Alternatively maybe we can split up this BIP into a Standards
        track and a separate Informational BIP?