Thanks for this Peter, really helpful.
> It is a much more fundamental
standard than Ordinals or Taproot Assets, in the sense that transaction
replacement is expected to be used by essentially all wallets as all wallets
have to deal with fee-rate fluctuations; I do not think that Ordinals or
Hello,
First off, apologies about my lack of participation. I am working on
mostly unrelated things and I'm afraid I have failed the community in
terms of what I can do on my end to keep the BIP process functional.
As such I am hereby resigning as BIP editor effective immediately.
Please remove
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 05:41:14AM -1000, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Question: is there a recommended way to produce a shorter identifier for
> inline use in reading material? For example, for proposal
> BIN-2024-0001-000, I'm thinking:
>
> - BIN24-1 (references whatever the
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 05:29:48PM +, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hey Luke
>
> I'd be happy to pick up working on BIP 3 again ([0], [1]) in light of this
> issue and others that are repeatedly cropping up (e.g. confusion on the
> recommended flow for working on proposed
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 04:47:33PM +, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi AJ,
>
> I like the idea and agree with everything you shared in the email except one
> thing:
>
> > So I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
> > thing that's independent of BIP process
Hi AJ,
I like the idea and agree with everything you shared in the email except one
thing:
> So I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
> thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at:
>
> * https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana
I think "authority"
On 2024-01-16 16:42, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at:
* https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana
If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals that
Hey Luke
I'd be happy to pick up working on BIP 3 again ([0], [1]) in light of this
issue and others that are repeatedly cropping up (e.g. confusion on the
recommended flow for working on proposed consensus changes, when to open a pull
request to bitcoin-inquisition, when to open a pull
Perhaps a BIP 3 is in order, but most of the real issue is simply a
matter of volunteer time.
AJ's attempt to conflate that with his own personal disagreements with
how BIPs have always worked, is unrelated.
Luke
On 1/17/24 01:55, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16,
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 6:43 PM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals that don't have
> anything to do with inquisition, that's fine; I'm intending to apply the
> policies I think the BIPs repo should
10 matches
Mail list logo
