diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'bip-0002.mediawiki')
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0002.mediawiki | 82 |
1 files changed, 63 insertions, 19 deletions
diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 571361c..9d59405 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ BIP: 2 Title: BIP Status and Comments Author: Luke Dashjr <luke+bip@dashjr.org> - Status: Draft + Status: Deferred Type: Process Created: 2016-02-03 </pre> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves rough cons See [[bip-0123.mediawiki|BIP 123]] for definitions of the various BIP layers. Activation of this BIP implies activation of BIP 123. -A soft-fork BIP strictly requires a clear miner majority expressed by blockchain voting (eg, using BIP 9). In addition, if the economy seems willing to make a "no confidence" hard-fork (such as a change in proof-of-work algorithm), the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork has potentially-majority support, or at most three months. Soft-fork BIPs may also set additional requirements for their adoption. Because of the possibility of changes to miner dynamics, especially in light of delegated voting (mining pools), it is highly recommended that a supermajority vote around 95% be required by the BIP itself, unless rationale is given for a lower threshold. +A soft-fork BIP strictly requires a clear miner majority expressed by blockchain voting (eg, using BIP 9). In addition, if the economy seems willing to make a "no confidence" hard-fork (such as a change in proof-of-work algorithm), the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork might have majority support, or at most three months. Soft-fork BIPs may also set additional requirements for their adoption. Because of the possibility of changes to miner dynamics, especially in light of delegated voting (mining pools), it is highly recommended that a supermajority vote around 95% be required by the BIP itself, unless rationale is given for a lower threshold. A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy, particularly including those selling desirable goods and services in exchange for bitcoin payments, as well as Bitcoin holders who wish to spend or would spend their bitcoins (including selling for other currencies) differently in the event of such a hard-fork. Adoption must be expressed by de facto usage of the hard-fork in practice (ie, not merely expressing public support, although that is a good step to establish agreement before adoption of the BIP). This economic adoption cannot be established merely by a super-majority, except by literally forcing the minority to accept the hard-fork (whether this is viable or not is outside the scope of this document). @@ -68,6 +68,15 @@ But they're doing something important and have invested a lot in Bitcoin! Should * This BIP does not aim to address what "should" be the basis of decisions. Such a statement, no matter how perfect in its justification, would be futile without some way to force others to use it. The BIP process does not aim to be a kind of forceful "governance" of Bitcoin, merely to provide a collaborative repository for proposing and providing information on standards, which people may voluntarily adopt or not. It can only hope to achieve accuracy in regard to the "Status" field by striving to reflect the reality of *how things actually are*, rather than *how they should be*. +What if a single merchant wishes to block a hard-fork? + +* This BIP addresses only the progression of the BIP Status field, not the deployment of the hard-fork (or any other change) itself. +* Regardless, one shop cannot operate in a vacuum: if they are indeed alone, they will soon find themselves no longer selling in exchange for bitcoin payments, as nobody else would exist willing to use the previous blockchain to pay them. If they are no longer selling, they cease to meet the criteria herein which enables their veto. + +How about a small number of merchants (maybe only two) who sell products to each other? + +* In this scenario, it would seem the previous Bitcoin is alive any working, and that the hard-fork has failed. How to resolve such a split is outside the scope of this BIP. + How can economic agreement veto a soft-fork? * The group of miners is determined by the consensus rules for the dynamic-membership multi-party signature (for Bitcoin, the proof-of-work algorithm), which can be modified with a hard-fork. Thus, if the same conditions required to modify this group are met in opposition to a soft-fork, the miner majority supporting the soft-fork is effectively void because the economy can decide to replace them with another group of would-be miners who do not support the soft-fork. @@ -118,6 +127,8 @@ For example, the preamble to BIP 1 might be updated to include the line: Comments-URI: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_Comments:BIP_0001 https://some-other-wiki.org/BIP_1_Comments +These fields must follow the "Discussions-To" header defined in BIP 1 (if that header is not present, it should follow the position where it would be present; generally this is immediately above the Status header). + To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP, and neither should be directly influencing the other. ===Rationale=== @@ -133,31 +144,60 @@ Will BIP comments be censored or limited to particular participants/"experts"? ==BIP licensing== -New BIPs may be accepted with the following licenses: - ===Specification=== +New BIPs may be accepted with the following licenses. Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. The License header in the preamble must be placed after the Created header. Each license must be referenced by their respecitve abbreviation given below. + +For example, a preamble might include the following License header: + + License: BSD-2-Clause + GNU-All-Permissive + +In this case, the BIP text is fully licensed under both the OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license as well as the GNU All-Permissive License, and anyone may modify and redistribute the text provided they comply with the terms of *either* license. In other words, the license list is an "OR choice", not an "AND also" requirement. + +It is also possible to license source code differently from the BIP text. A optional License-Code header is placed after the License header. Again, each license must be referenced by their respective abbreviation given below. + +For example, a preamble specifying the optional License-Code header might look like: + + License: BSD-2-Clause + GNU-All-Permissive + License-Code: GPL-2.0+ + +In this case, the code in the BIP is not available under the BSD or All-Permissive licenses, but only under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer. +If the code were to be available under *only* version 2 exactly, the "+" symbol should be removed from the license abbreviation. +For a later version (eg, GPL 3.0), you would increase the version number (and retain or remove the "+" depending on intent). + + License-Code: GPL-2.0 # This refers to GPL v2.0 *only*, no later license versions are acceptable. + License-Code: GPL-2.0+ # This refers to GPL v2.0 *or later*. + License-Code: GPL-3.0 # This refers to GPL v3.0 *only*, no later license versions are acceptable. + License-Code: GPL-3.0+ # This refers to GPL v3.0 *or later*. + +In the event that the text or code is not available under common license terms, the list should instead be replaced with the single term "Complex", and full details provided in the Copyright section of the BIP. + ====Recommended licenses==== -* [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license] -* [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license] -* [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal] -* [http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html GNU All-Permissive License] +* BSD-2-Clause: [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license] +* BSD-3-Clause: [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license] +* CC0-1.0: [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal] +* GNU-All-Permissive: [http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html GNU All-Permissive License] In addition, it is recommended that literal code included in the BIP be dual-licensed under the same license terms as the project it modifies. For example, literal code intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be dual-licensed under the MIT license terms as well as one of the above with the rest of the BIP text. ====Not recommended, but acceptable licenses==== -* [http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Apache License, version 2.0] -* [http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Boost Software License, version 1.0] -* [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International] -* [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International] -* [https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Expat/MIT/X11 license] -* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), version 3 or newer] -* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html GNU Free Documentation License] -* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer] -* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1 or newer] -* [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0] +* Apache-2.0: [http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Apache License, version 2.0] +* BSL-1.0: [http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Boost Software License, version 1.0] +* CC-BY-4.0: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International] +* CC-BY-SA-4.0: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International] +* MIT: [https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Expat/MIT/X11 license] +* AGPL-3.0+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), version 3 or newer] +* FDL-1.3: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3] +* GPL-2.0+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer] +* LGPL-2.1+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1 or newer] +* OPL: [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0] + +Additionally, PD is used to express that the work is placed in the public domain. +This may not be used for new BIPs, and is only defined for use by BIPs predating acceptance of this BIP. ===Rationale=== @@ -172,8 +212,12 @@ Why are there software licenses included? * Some BIPs, especially consensus layer, may include literal code in the BIP itself which may not be available under the exact license terms of the BIP. * Despite this, not all software licenses would be acceptable for content included in BIPs. +Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? + +* In some jurisdictions, public domain is not recognised as a legitimate legal action, leaving the BIP simply copyrighted with no redistribution or modification allowed at all. + ==See Also== * [[bip-0001.mediawiki|BIP 1: BIP Purpose and Guidelines]] * [[bip-0123.mediawiki|BIP 123: BIP Classification]] -* [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 RBF 7282: On Consensus and Humming in the IETF] +* [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 RFC 7282: On Consensus and Humming in the IETF] |