BIP 325: Signet

[kallewoof]

This BIP describes Signet, a proposed new network for testing purposes.

[jtimon]

I'm eager for this.

[kallewoof]

These seem to be the editor criteria for BIPs, as seen in BIP-2:

• Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be accepted.
  • I am biased, but I believe it is sound and complete. If not, please let me know. Lack of negative feedback here and on mailing list, including concept ACKs on the implementation itself (3 concept ACKs on bitcoin/bitcoin#16411), indicate this is the case.
• The title should accurately describe the content.
  • Title is fine, I believe, but I can expand if required.
• The BIP draft must have been sent to the Bitcoin development mailing list for discussion.
  • https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-July/017123.html
• Motivation and backward compatibility (when applicable) must be addressed.
  • There is a backwards compatibility section; if it needs complementing, let me know.
• The defined Layer header must be correctly assigned for the given specification.
  • Application seems like the correct layer.
• Licensing terms must be acceptable for BIPs.
  • License is based on other, already-approved BIPs.

If there's anything not in this list, lemme know.

[luke-jr]

I think the only question is whether it is actually Bitcoin...

[kallewoof]

Since it affects (in the "lets test our software thoroughly" sense) all Bitcoin software, I would say it is Bitcoin. I guess it depends on your definition of "Bitcoin" though?

[clarkmoody]

Testnet is mentioned plenty of times in the BIPs. Is Testnet Bitcoin?

[harding]

Documenting a standardized way to create test networks for Bitcoin applications seems like a wholly appropriate use of the BIPs repository. If that justification is not satisfactory to convince the BIPs editor that this proposed BIP should be merged, I'd suggest changing this document's type to "Informational". I've just skimmed BIP2 and it seems to me that pretty much anything can be published in that category.

[junderw]

I agree with @harding

Worst case scenario: Change type to informational and merge

But tbh I think this is fine as is.

[laanwj]

Agree with @harding too. I think the "is this bitcoin" discussion is a valid point but also I think there's wide enough agreement that this deserves a BIP [as a testnet, not as a future course for bitcoin mainnet, ofc]. There's much more controversial ideas (for mainnet!) that got a BIP number.

[junderw]

Agree with @harding too. I think the "is this bitcoin" discussion is a valid point but also I think there's wide enough agreement that this deserves a BIP [as a testnet, not as a future course for bitcoin mainnet, ofc]. There's much more controversial ideas (for mainnet!) that got a BIP number.

looks at BIP100 onward

Yup. We've had many more "is this Bitcoin?" BIPs merged with the intent of hardforking mainnet... so a BIP with the intent of creating a new testnet is definitely BIP-worthy imo.

[luke-jr]

Assigned BIP 325.