Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BIP 325: Signet #803

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 6, 2019
Merged

BIP 325: Signet #803

merged 1 commit into from Nov 6, 2019

Conversation

@kallewoof
Copy link
Member

kallewoof commented Jul 17, 2019

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

Copy link
Member

jtimon left a comment

I'm eager for this.

bip-signet.mediawiki Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
bip-signet.mediawiki Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
bip-signet.mediawiki Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the kallewoof:bip-signet branch from 0b13dad to 0b4e3d7 Jul 18, 2019
bip-signet.mediawiki Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the kallewoof:bip-signet branch from 0b4e3d7 to 762edf9 Jul 19, 2019
@kallewoof

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

kallewoof commented Jul 23, 2019

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.
  • 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.

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the kallewoof:bip-signet branch from 762edf9 to b254506 Aug 11, 2019
@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Sep 19, 2019

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

@luke-jr luke-jr added the New BIP label Sep 19, 2019
@kallewoof

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

kallewoof commented Sep 24, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

clarkmoody commented Oct 15, 2019

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

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

harding commented Oct 15, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

junderw commented Oct 15, 2019

I agree with @harding

Worst case scenario: Change type to informational and merge

But tbh I think this is fine as is.

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Oct 15, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

junderw commented Oct 15, 2019

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 luke-jr changed the title BIP-XXXX: Signet BIP 325: Signet Nov 4, 2019
@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Nov 4, 2019

Assigned BIP 325.

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the kallewoof:bip-signet branch from b254506 to 2a270d9 Nov 6, 2019
@luke-jr luke-jr merged commit 580e719 into bitcoin:master Nov 6, 2019
1 check passed
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
7 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.