{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e If you think it's not clear enough, which may explain why you did not even\n\u003e attempt to follow it for your block size increase, feel free to make\n\u003e improvements.\n\u003e\n\nAs the outcome of a block size BIP would be a code change to Bitcoin Core,\nI cannot make improvements, only ask for them. Which is what I'm doing.\n\nI agree that BIP 1 is not clear enough. Gavin is writing a BIP to accompany\nhis patch, because BIPs are best when they describe working code, and BIP 1\n*is* at least clear about that. Otherwise it can turn out during\nimplementation that something was different to what was anticipated. I'm\nsure you agree with this.\n\nSo a BIP is coming. However, BIP 1 also says this:\n\nVetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to\n\u003e save the potential author time\n\n\nand\n\nBIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a BIP\n\u003e before submitting it for review\n\n\nOK. Gavin has been vetting the idea publicly and collecting community\nfeedback. Note that the entire Bitcoin community is not on this list, so he\npublished a series of blog posts to get wider feedback, and then was\ncriticised for not doing it all here instead.\n\nBut anyway - so far, so good.  The procedure is being followed.\n\nWhat happens once a BIP is written? The process says:\n\nFor a BIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be\n\u003e a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The\n\u003e enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation,\n\u003e if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly.\n\n\n\n\u003e  Once a BIP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be\n\u003e completed.\n\n\nThis is where the problem starts.\n\nThe BIP process you refer to *does not state how acceptance will happen*.\nIt merely sets out a few minimum requirements like making some sort of\nsense, having code. It's also full of extremely vague descriptions like\n\"must represent a net improvement\". Improvement according to who? That's\nleft unexplained.\n\nAnd then it says what happens once a BIP is accepted.\n\nThe middle bit is missing. When there is disagreement over a consensus BIP,\nhow are decisions made?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/c0cc0fed/attachment.html\u003e"}