---
LIP Number: Assigned by Editor
Title: Title [Foundation Vote, Service Node Vote, No Vote] <!-- Titles should contain the relevant information for whether the LIP is part of a Service Node Vote, or requires a vote from the foundation if neither is applicable then you can add [No Vote] -->
Author: <a list of the author's or authors' name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s), e.g. (use with the parentheses or triangular brackets): FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <foo@bar.com>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
Status: Draft
Type: (Core, Networking, Interface, Other)
Created: date (yyyy-mm-dd)
Requires (*optional): LIP number(s)
Replaces (*optional): LIP number(s)
---
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the LIP.
Anywhere in your LIP you can also include images which can be included by adding the file to the assets folder and referencing as belowExample image 
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
Motivation is critical for LIPs that want to change the Loki or Lokinet protocol. Your explanation should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the LIP solves. LIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations of Loki or Lokinet on different platforms.
The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work,. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.-->
All LIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The LIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. LIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
The code implementations of a LIP do not need to be completed before the LIP is given the "Final" status, Generally we encourage LIP's to present a written only proposal to reach consensus on the specification and proposal rationale before writing code, however parties involved in decision making can still find "rough code" useful when it comes deciding the outcome of your LIP. If you have developed code or a rough implementation you should link it here.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.