On Wednesday 14 February 2018 10:01:46 PM Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should be assigned a
> label "soft fork" or "hard fork". However, I think the differentiation
> into soft fork or hard fork should not be made for BIPs that document
> buried deployments. In contrast to soft forks and hard forks, buried
> deployments do not require community and miner coordination for a safe
> deployment.

They also do not require software coordination. Therefore, why should there be 
BIPs at all? Seems to me that we should instead add these documents to 

That being said, I'm also okay with just adding an Annex to the original 
softfork/hardfork BIP describing each shortcut. It just seems annoying to have 
two BIPs for every protocol change: one for the change itself, and then 
another for implementation-specific shortcuts taken.

bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to