Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B7C693E for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E910B121 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 77so335525826ioc.2 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:09:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=wWVsLNLexTEITjCd80dCsSvH1Omezn8xdur3TAAAY40=; b=IoTNojtX8lfSyDNCs06DjETmUIUSpqRrn07BtD8uGAJwNpLqDScYoO6FKf5Uq4sPKP 33LgQMNzAvdzs08VwcjNVK34AM0L4hyXuzDL324aCCd5zSVZaZor5N+nEjt4Ub+RLOxp kynx8HfNO97CG3kth0izzHQBFDBRB7waXo1ZfCKILy/RraBQUYIYdvyS9xB9n16zvFzQ iEwQhDK1Uhx3OLsA/1EHW55igCt9a2slWN9duh9bR5C/KPevn/4iCEgRWU53hRgTnw6a NgR5yCJpj1prnu3phm8QLe3jm8FHen5HBDN6TIx3K3n7RWlHjoMa+rdWTtppkUzQbBzO gJLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.17.144 with SMTP id 16mr96449453ior.109.1452557386500; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.77.75 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:09:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201601071710.57868.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201601071710.57868.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:46 +0000 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ff20209cf42052917df26 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_SBL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:47 -0000 --001a113ff20209cf42052917df26 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > - BIP 46 is missing from the repository, but apparently self-soft-assigned > by > Tier Nolan in > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005545.html > ; if this was later assigned official, or if he is still > interested in pursuing this, it seems logical to just keep it at BIP 46. > I was never officially assigned any number for this. Subsequent P2SH changes give the required functionality in an alternative way. This renders the BIP obsolete. I suggest marking the number as nonassignable, in order to prevent confusion with archive searches. I assume that new BIP numbers will be greater than 100 anyway. As was pointed out at the time, I shouldn't have used a number in the original git branch before being assigned it officially. --001a113ff20209cf42052917df26 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
- BIP 46 is missing from the repository, but apparently self-soft-assigned = by
Tier Nolan in https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005545.html = ; if this was later assigned official, or if he is still
interested in pursuing this, it seems logical to just keep it at BIP 46.

I was never officially assigned any numbe= r for this.

Subsequent P2SH changes give the required functionality = in an alternative way.=C2=A0 This renders the BIP obsolete.

I sugges= t marking the number as nonassignable, in order to prevent confusion with a= rchive searches.=C2=A0 I assume that new BIP numbers will be greater than 1= 00 anyway.

As was pointed out at the time, I shouldn't have used= a number in the original git branch before being assigned it officially.
--001a113ff20209cf42052917df26--