My mistake, apologies all.
- I honestly thought everyone just took the next available number and
published up their BIP's.
And, I see you have something of a master list.
As a suggestion, would it be worth considering linking to some of that
information in the list welcome email? Web search is not always your friend for
locating everything relevant.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
________________________________
From: Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org>
Sent: Sunday, 24 December 2017 6:21:24 PM
To: Damian Williamson
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For
Ordering Transactions In Blocks
BIP 177 is NOT assigned. Do not self-assign BIP numbers!
Please read BIP 2:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
[https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/528860?s=400&v=4]<https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki>
bips/bip-0002.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips ·
GitHub<https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki>
github.com
Abstract. A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) is a design document providing
information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bitcoin
or its ...
Luke
On Sunday 24 December 2017 2:57:38 AM Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In
> Blocks
>
>
> This BIP proposes to address the issue of transactional reliability in
> Bitcoin, where valid transactions may be stuck in the mempool for extended
> periods.
>
>
> There are two key issues to be resolved:
>
>
> 1. The current transaction bandwidth limit.
> 2. The current ad-hoc methods of including transactions in blocks
> resulting in variable and confusing confirmation times for valid
> transactions, including transactions with a valid fee that may never
> confirm.
>
>
> It is important with any change to protect the value of fees as these will
> eventually be the only payment that miners receive. Rather than an auction
> model for limited bandwidth, the proposal results in a stable fee for
> priority service auction model.
>
>
> I will post the full proposal up on to my blog in the coming days and,
> re-review incorporating feedback that I have received on and off thread.
> It would not be true to suggest that all feedback received has been
> entirely positive although, most of it has been constructive.
>
>
> The previous threads for this BIP are available here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/subje
> ct.html
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Williamson
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
