| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-12-04 | BIP-0001 Should be labeled as "Process" Type | Andy Chase | |
| Previously BIP-0001 listed in its header preamble that is was a "Standards Track" type proposal. This conflicts with both its own definition of "Standards Track" proposal as well as the type listed in PEP-0001 of which BIP-0001 is based on. Defitions of each type of proposal: A Standards Track BIP describes any change that affects most or all Bitcoin implementations. An Informational BIP describes a Bitcoin design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Bitcoin community, but does not propose a new feature. A Process BIP describes a process surrounding Bitcoin, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Specifically: "Any meta-BIP is also considered a Process BIP." Based on these definitions BIP-0001 should have always been labeled as a "Process" BIP and this patch corrects this. | |||
| 2015-12-02 | Merge pull request #255 from bitcoin/2015_12_bip1 | Wladimir J. van der Laan | |
| Change BIP1 to status Active | |||
| 2015-12-01 | Change BIP1 to status Active | Wladimir J. van der Laan | |
| From the text: "Some Informational and Process BIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BIP 1 (this BIP)." | |||
| 2015-11-28 | Merge pull request #245 from btcdrak/bip68sync | Luke-Jr | |
| BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementation | |||
| 2015-11-28 | Small fixup | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-28 | Merge pull request #249 from bitstein/master | Luke-Jr | |
| BIP47: fix typo | |||
| 2015-11-28 | Merge pull request #238 from jwilkins/bip_103_squashed | Luke-Jr | |
| Bip 103 squashed | |||
| 2015-11-28 | Merge pull request #248 from btcdrak/bip112sync | Luke-Jr | |
| BIP112: Update document to match implementation | |||
| 2015-11-26 | Merge pull request #243 from CodeShark/BIP0112_revisions | Luke-Jr | |
| BIP-0112 minor revision to text. | |||
| 2015-11-25 | Update deployment to be TBD | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-25 | Use optimised script examples | BtcDrak | |
| Taken from 20/11/15 version of deployable lightning | |||
| 2015-11-24 | Fixup comment | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-24 | More clearly define script execution failure pathway | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-23 | fix typo | Michael Goldstein | |
| 2015-11-23 | BIP112: Update document to match implementation | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-23 | Rename flags in code example to match implementation | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-23 | Improve title, add encoding diagram and small fixup | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-23 | Clarify (1 << 22) logic | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-20 | Add note about free bits and correct deployment recommendations | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-20 | Update compatibility section | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-20 | clarify specification further | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-20 | Edits from kinoshitajona | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-20 | BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementation | BtcDrak | |
| 2015-11-17 | Merge pull request #244 from sipa/bip62dead | Luke-Jr | |
| Mark BIP62 as withdrawn | |||
| 2015-11-17 | Mark BIP62 as withdrawn | Pieter Wuille | |
| All of BIP62's (including the only-new-transactions) are currently enforced as standardness rules, but it seems hard to push it further. Every new type of complex transaction may require new extra rules, and some important types of malleability cannot be addressed by it (for example, a single participant in a multisig spend creating a new signature with a different nonce). It seems wiser to pursue normalized txid or segregated witness-based solutions, which do solve this problem more fundamentally. | |||
| 2015-11-17 | BIP-0112 minor revision to text. | Eric Lombrozo | |
| 2015-11-15 | Merge pull request #195 from btcdrak/patch-3 | Gregory Maxwell | |
| BIP-0001: Updates | |||
| 2015-11-13 | Merge #241 from branch '2015-11-13-bip65-wording-fixes' of ↵ | Jeff Garzik | |
| git://github.com/petertodd/bips | |||
| 2015-11-13 | Reword motivation section | Peter Todd | |
| Previous wording was very confusing now that most people will associate payment channels with CLTV-based payment channels rather than Jeremy Spilman style payment channels. | |||
| 2015-11-13 | Clearer wording | Peter Todd | |
| 2015-11-13 | Use the term "malleability" rather than "mutability" | Peter Todd | |
| 2015-11-13 | Refer to "Payment Channels" rather than "Micro-Payment Channels" | Peter Todd | |
| More generic terminology. | |||
| 2015-11-13 | Minor: fix wording | Peter Todd | |
| 2015-11-13 | Merge pull request #237 from jtimon/bip99-2 | Luke-Jr | |
| Bip99: Improvements | |||
| 2015-11-13 | Merge pull request #240 from 6londe/patch-3 | Luke-Jr | |
| typo fixed | |||
| 2015-11-13 | typo fixed | Changhoon Lee | |
| trivial typo fixed | |||
| 2015-11-10 | fixup! corrections | Jorge Timón | |
| 2015-11-09 | adding Pieter Wuille's 'Block size following technological growth | Jonathan Wilkins | |
| 2015-11-09 | squashed version | Jonathan Wilkins | |
| 2015-11-08 | Add bip99 to readme | Jorge Timón | |
| 2015-11-08 | Improvements to Schism hardforks section | Jorge Timón | |
| 2015-11-08 | More corrections and improvements | Jorge Timón | |
| 2015-11-07 | [trivial] typo | MarcoFalke | |
| 2015-11-07 | Bip-99/Add details to definitions | Andy Chase | |
| 2015-11-07 | Random grammar and spelling stuff | instagibbs | |
| 2015-11-07 | Merge pull request #221 from sdaftuar/add-sendheaders | Luke-Jr | |
| New BIP for "sendheaders" p2p message | |||
| 2015-11-07 | Merge pull request #181 from jtimon/bip-forks | Luke-Jr | |
| BIP99: Motivation and deployment of consensus rule changes | |||
| 2015-11-07 | Merge pull request #236 from jgarzik/2015_2mb_blocksize | Luke-Jr | |
| BIP 102: Add miner vote. Fix index. | |||
| 2015-11-06 | BIP 102: Add miner vote. Fix index. | Jeff Garzik | |
| 2015-11-05 | Some of kanzure's nits, copyright, updated Attribution, don't repeat ↵ | Jorge Timón | |
| "Without entering in much detail" | |||
 |
index : slackcoder/bips | |
| Bitcoin Improvement Proposals | Mirror |
| summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff |