1 2018-04-17 18:06:46 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: looks like you should just merge https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/639 no?
 2 2018-04-17 18:22:17 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: "just merge" an insanely controversial PR?
 3 2018-04-17 18:22:59 <BlueMatt> "insanely controversial"?
 4 2018-04-17 18:23:08 <BlueMatt> only voskull disagrees as far as I can see?
 5 2018-04-17 18:23:35 <luke-jr> I might. Although I don't remember the outcome of the last discussion on the topic.
 6 2018-04-17 18:24:18 <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"
 7 2018-04-17 18:24:26 <luke-jr> it's obviously not obvious
 8 2018-04-17 18:24:28 <BlueMatt> I mean I think more nuanced definitions would be really good
 9 2018-04-17 18:24:36 <BlueMatt> I think only evoskuil disagrees with that point?
10 2018-04-17 18:24:44 <BlueMatt> so, sorry, obvious to everyone else
11 2018-04-17 18:24:52 <luke-jr> insofar as it is a protocol change at all, it is clearly a hardfork
12 2018-04-17 18:25:11 <luke-jr> the only way it wouldn't be a hardfork, is if it isn't considered a protocol change
13 2018-04-17 18:25:15 <BlueMatt> I would take objection to the use of the word "fork" here
14 2018-04-17 18:25:32 <BlueMatt> so in other words it looks like we need to clarify our definitions
15 2018-04-17 18:25:43 <luke-jr> why?
16 2018-04-17 18:25:54 <luke-jr> there is no chain split for any protocol change, in ideal cirumstances
17 2018-04-17 18:25:59 <luke-jr> even BIP148 had no split
18 2018-04-17 18:26:00 <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?
19 2018-04-17 18:26:26 <BlueMatt> because it is highly realistic that BIP148/etc *could have had* a split
20 2018-04-17 18:26:29 <BlueMatt> even if they didnt
21 2018-04-17 18:26:52 <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"
22 2018-04-17 18:27:01 <BlueMatt> but, yes, I'd agree its really not a "protocol change"
23 2018-04-17 18:27:07 <BlueMatt> which I guess is my point eithter way
24 2018-04-17 18:27:17 <luke-jr> BIPs aren't the place for *implementation-specific* stuff in general; they're the place for stuff common to multiple software
25 2018-04-17 18:27:19 <BlueMatt> not sure where else to put such documents though, no?
26 2018-04-17 18:27:26 <luke-jr> bitcoin-core/docs?
27 2018-04-17 18:27:58 <luke-jr> oh, I think I remember the outcome of aforementioned discussion now: moving shortcuts like this to an appendix on the original BIP
28 2018-04-17 18:28:18 <BlueMatt> oh, that seems like a reasonably good idea
29 2018-04-17 18:28:24 <BlueMatt> can you comment on the bip pr, then?
30 2018-04-17 18:28:57 <luke-jr> yeah.. might be a bit, though, as I don't have my secure browser up yet
31 2018-04-17 18:29:19 <BlueMatt> thats....an oxymoron
32 2018-04-17 18:29:24 <BlueMatt> hmmm
33 2018-04-17 18:29:24 <BlueMatt> "secure browser"
34 2018-04-17 18:29:36 <luke-jr> well, I have my "secure" browser for stuff like GitHub, and my "social"
35 2018-04-17 18:29:41 <luke-jr> well, I have my "secure" browser for stuff like GitHub, and my "social" browser for everything else
36 2018-04-17 18:30:02 <luke-jr> the social browser was already setup for Xpra; the secure one, not so much
37 2018-04-17 18:30:07 <BlueMatt> yea, thats fair, though I still prefer the "no browser on my workstation/talos" approach :p
38 2018-04-17 18:30:16 <luke-jr> that's where I'm migrating to
39 2018-04-17 18:30:26 <luke-jr> enforced my Talos not supporting it :D
40 2018-04-17 18:58:23 <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.
41 2018-04-17 18:58:48 <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
42 2018-04-17 18:59:12 <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
43 2018-04-17 18:59:38 <luke-jr> BIP 123 is Active, and became so without any objections; to amend it, there would need to be a new BIP
44 2018-04-17 19:00:43 <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.
45 2018-04-17 19:00:47 <sdaftuar> thanks