[bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Decentralized Improvement Proposals

[Tomas via bitcoin-dev]

In an attempt to reduce developer centralization, and to reduce the risk
of forks introduced by implementation other than bitcoin-core, I have
drafted a BIP to support changes to the protocol from different
implementations.

The BIP can be found at:
https://github.com/tomasvdw/bips/blob/master/decentralized-improvement-proposals.mediawiki

I believe this BIP could mitigate the risk of forks, and decentralize
the development of the protocol.

If you consider the proposal worthy of discussion, please assign a
BIP-number.

Regards,
Tomas van der Wansem

[Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev]

Post by Tomas via bitcoin-dev
In an attempt to reduce developer centralization, and to reduce the risk
of forks introduced by implementation other than bitcoin-core, I have
drafted a BIP to support changes to the protocol from different
implementations.

The premises in Motivation are false. BIPs are required to have a reference
implementation, but that implementation need not necessarily be for Bitcoin
Core specifically.

The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention of
version bits.

Luke

[Tomas via bitcoin-dev]

Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention of
version bits.

The actual assignment of version bits isn't clear from the
specification. Are you saying that any implementation that wants to
propose a change is encouraged to pick a free version bit and use it?

Furthermore, my proposal addresses the danger of forward-incompatible
changes; a hard-fork can no longer occur as every implementation will
agree on the active the set of rules even if it has not implemented
them. This seems to be lacking in the version bits proposal.

Tomas

[Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev]

Post by Tomas via bitcoin-dev

Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention
of version bits.

The actual assignment of version bits isn't clear from the
specification. Are you saying that any implementation that wants to
propose a change is encouraged to pick a free version bit and use it?

That should probably be clarified in the BIP, I agree. Perhaps it ought to be
assigned the same as BIP numbers themselves, by the BIP editor? (Although as a
limited resource, maybe that's not the best solution.)

Post by Tomas via bitcoin-dev
Furthermore, my proposal addresses the danger of forward-incompatible
changes; a hard-fork can no longer occur as every implementation will
agree on the active the set of rules even if it has not implemented
them. This seems to be lacking in the version bits proposal.

I don't think that's possible. First of all, a hardfork can always occur,
since this is something done by the economy and not (even possibly opposed to)
miners. Furthermore, consider the change affecting how further rule changes
are made, such as a PoW algorithm change.

Luke

[Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev]

Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev

Post by Tomas via bitcoin-dev

Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention
of version bits.

The actual assignment of version bits isn't clear from the
specification. Are you saying that any implementation that wants to
propose a change is encouraged to pick a free version bit and use it?

That should probably be clarified in the BIP, I agree. Perhaps it ought to be
assigned the same as BIP numbers themselves, by the BIP editor? (Although as a
limited resource, maybe that's not the best solution.)

I thought about it, but it's subject to change. Frankly, the number of
deployed forks is low enough that they can sort it out themselves. If
we need something more robust, I'm happy to fill that role.

Cheers,
Rusty.