BIP 108: Block size increase to 2MB + small steps (BIP 102 variant w/ small steps)

[jgarzik]

A request for BIP 102 was "a variant that does not require revisiting", so a small step was included per the current thinking on small-step small-shock.

NOTE: Creates new "drafts" directory to illustrate different proposal technique.

[maflcko]

Just for the record: @gmaxwell Did you assign this BIP number?

[jgarzik]

He didn't - proper number assignment appreciated

The index was intentionally not updated, for this reason.

[jgarzik]

Updated to illustrate a BIP-number-neutral, IETF-like technique, parallel process. Proposed process:

1. BIP author creates PR to store unnumbered BIP in drafts/ Naming convention similar to IETF draft: draft-AUTHOR-SUMMARY.
2. BIP editors review drafts/* periodically for minimum standards, as per existing process.
3. BIP editor assigns a number, moves into main directory, updates index.
4. If a draft does not move after 6 months, it is deleted.

This enables a parallel process, where authors can upload to drafts/ without having to wait for anyone.

[btcdrak]

@jgarzik fwiw, draft naming is also recommended by BIP-0001 in the form bip-jgarzik-2mb-small-steps.

[luke-jr]

Needs Copyright section.

[jgarzik]

Closing request. No near term horizon for this proposal.

[luke-jr]

It's not clear if I should de-allocate BIP 108 for reuse, or leave it assigned...

[dabura667]

BIPs should not be reused for clarity purposes imo.

[afk11]

It should probably remain in the repo. It's status is only draft, so was never fully 'accepted'.

[luke-jr]

Withdrawn makes sense IMO, but @jgarzik never completed the submission. :/

@jgarzik Can you license the BIP so it can be included as Withdrawn at least?

[gmaxwell]

meh. just turn it into an empty document with the header and withdrawn in order to kill the number. You're making things too complex. :)