On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:53:15 AM Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:43:13AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs. > > > > Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the > > conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or > > especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think, > > reasonable uses of the process. > > > > E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if > > you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all! > > For example, consider Luke-Jr's own BIP19, M-of-N Standard Transactions, > a non-consensus-critical suggested policy change! > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0019.mediawiki
BIP 19 does not explicitly purport to directly change policy. It defines a standard way of assembling multisig transactions. > Anyway, full-RBF has significant impacts for wallet authors and many > other stakeholders. At minimum it changes how you will want to author > and (re)author transactions, much like BIP19 does. This is omitted from the BIP (in fact, it doesn't even have a Specification section!). No objections to a BIP specifying standards to use for authoring/modifying transactions for RBF, but it should leave out policy (or at least constrain it to a strictly non-normative section. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
