1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B7C693E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 77so335525826ioc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <CAE-z3OVZHLef76cUENwu+v2W9Lp8PZFZJwnaFMPc0x=_x48JHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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 <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 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
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- BIP 46 is missing from the repository, but apparently self-soft-assigned =
by<br>
Tier Nolan in <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoi=
n-dev/2014-April/005545.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005545.html</a> =
; if this was later assigned official, or if he is still<br>
interested in pursuing this, it seems logical to just keep it at BIP 46.<br=
></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was never officially assigned any numbe=
r for this.<br><br>Subsequent P2SH changes give the required functionality =
in an alternative way.=C2=A0 This renders the BIP obsolete.<br><br>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.<br><br>As was pointed out at the time, I shouldn't have used=
a number in the original git branch before being assigned it officially.<b=
r></div></div></div></div>
--001a113ff20209cf42052917df26--
|
