Transcript for #bitcoin-dev 2018/04/17

18:06 BlueMatt luke-jr: looks like you should just merge https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/639 no?
18:22 luke-jr BlueMatt: "just merge" an insanely controversial PR?
18:22 BlueMatt "insanely controversial"?
18:23 BlueMatt only voskull disagrees as far as I can see?
18:23 luke-jr I might. Although I don't remember the outcome of the last discussion on the topic.
18:24 BlueMatt afaiu the outcome is "obviously not a 'hard fork', but if we want to have clearer definitions, that is a paralell task that can happen independently"
18:24 luke-jr it's obviously not obvious
18:24 BlueMatt I mean I think more nuanced definitions would be really good
18:24 BlueMatt I think only evoskuil disagrees with that point?
18:24 BlueMatt so, sorry, obvious to everyone else
18:24 luke-jr insofar as it is a protocol change at all, it is clearly a hardfork
18:25 luke-jr the only way it wouldn't be a hardfork, is if it isn't considered a protocol change
18:25 BlueMatt I would take objection to the use of the word "fork" here
18:25 BlueMatt so in other words it looks like we need to clarify our definitions
18:25 luke-jr why?
18:25 luke-jr there is no chain split for any protocol change, in ideal cirumstances
18:25 luke-jr even BIP148 had no split
18:26 BlueMatt if BIPs arent the place to put "informational documents describing code-level changes that are of interest to the broader community", where do they go?
18:26 BlueMatt because it is highly realistic that BIP148/etc *could have had* a split
18:26 BlueMatt even if they didnt
18:26 BlueMatt in the BIP 90 case it is highly *unrealistic* that there could be a split, so I think everyone else was commenting that its really not a "fork"
18:27 BlueMatt but, yes, I'd agree its really not a "protocol change"
18:27 BlueMatt which I guess is my point eithter way
18:27 luke-jr BIPs aren't the place for *implementation-specific* stuff in general; they're the place for stuff common to multiple software
18:27 BlueMatt not sure where else to put such documents though, no?
18:27 luke-jr bitcoin-core/docs?
18:27 luke-jr oh, I think I remember the outcome of aforementioned discussion now: moving shortcuts like this to an appendix on the original BIP
18:28 BlueMatt oh, that seems like a reasonably good idea
18:28 BlueMatt can you comment on the bip pr, then?
18:28 luke-jr yeah.. might be a bit, though, as I don't have my secure browser up yet
18:29 BlueMatt thats....an oxymoron
18:29 BlueMatt "secure browser"
18:29 BlueMatt hmmm
18:29 luke-jr well, I have my "secure" browser for stuff like GitHub, and my "social"
18:29 luke-jr well, I have my "secure" browser for stuff like GitHub, and my "social" browser for everything else
18:30 luke-jr the social browser was already setup for Xpra; the secure one, not so much
18:30 BlueMatt yea, thats fair, though I still prefer the "no browser on my workstation/talos" approach :p
18:30 luke-jr that's where I'm migrating to
18:30 luke-jr enforced my Talos not supporting it :D
18:58 sdaftuar luke-jr: our disagreement appears to be over the definition of the term "hard fork". my position is that the BIP 123 definition is a bad one, and i'm trying to have it not apply to my BIP.
18:58 sdaftuar if your position is that you get to decide what the definition is, then please just say so on the PR so we can stop wasting our time
18:59 sdaftuar if there is some process, however, by which you'd consider that the BIP 123 definition in fact is a bad one, as i have been arguing, then tell me what that is
18:59 luke-jr BIP 123 is Active, and became so without any objections; to amend it, there would need to be a new BIP
19:00 sdaftuar ok, if you don't mind could you also please post that on the PR? i'm glad to know the answer, and we can put this to bed.
19:00 sdaftuar thanks