Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on this proposal. I would welcome that.
Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks! Thanks to all for the discussion! On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote: > > I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go > > through a process like this? Just hard forks? > > The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks > should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork > process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted > BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher > requirements. > > Luke >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
