Skip to content

/bips

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-XXXX: Signet #803

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from
+85 −0

Conversation

@kallewoof
Copy link
Member

commented Jul 17, 2019 •
edited

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

jtimon suggested changes Jul 17, 2019
View changes

Copy link
Member

left a comment

I'm eager for this.
Show resolved Hide resolved bip-signet.mediawiki
Show resolved Hide resolved bip-signet.mediawiki Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved bip-signet.mediawiki Outdated

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the kallewoof:bip-signet branch from 0b13dad to 0b4e3d7 Jul 18, 2019

@kallewoof kallewoof referenced this pull request Jul 18, 2019

Open

Signet support #16411

@luke-jr

luke-jr reviewed Jul 18, 2019
View changes

Show resolved Hide resolved bip-signet.mediawiki

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the kallewoof:bip-signet branch from 0b4e3d7 to 762edf9 Jul 19, 2019

@kallewoof

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member Author

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.

@MaxHillebrand MaxHillebrand referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2019

Open

Implement Signet Support #66

@kallewoof
BIP-XXXX: Signet
Verified
This commit was signed with a verified signature.
kallewoof
GPG key ID: 57AF762DB3353322 Learn about signing commits
Loading status checks…
b254506

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jtimon jtimon

@luke-jr luke-jr

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@kallewoof @jtimon @luke-jr
You can’t perform that action at this time.