summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2015-12-10BIP68 now assume MTP in all instancesBtcDrak
2015-12-08Merge pull request #258 from petertodd/bip65-fix-spec-missing-caseWladimir J. van der Laan
BIP65 formatting fixes
2015-12-07Merge pull request #252 from jl2012/patch-5Luke-Jr
Corrections with the conditions for script failure
2015-12-05Fix missing case statement at beginning of specificationPeter Todd
Wasn't being displayed on github; adding an empty line prior to the spec seems to fix this.
2015-12-05Remove space in BIP66Peter Todd
Seems to be how people are writing BIP's these days.
2015-12-05Minor: fix capitalisationPeter Todd
2015-12-04Merge pull request #256 from techstoreclub/fix_bip0001_typeWladimir J. van der Laan
BIP-0001 Should be labeled as "Process" Type
2015-12-04BIP-0001 Should be labeled as "Process" TypeAndy 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.
2015-12-02Merge pull request #255 from bitcoin/2015_12_bip1Wladimir J. van der Laan
Change BIP1 to status Active
2015-12-01Change BIP1 to status ActiveWladimir 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)."
2015-12-01Corrections with the conditions for script failurejl2012
2015-11-28Merge pull request #245 from btcdrak/bip68syncLuke-Jr
BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementation
2015-11-28Small fixupBtcDrak
2015-11-28Merge pull request #249 from bitstein/masterLuke-Jr
BIP47: fix typo
2015-11-28Merge pull request #238 from jwilkins/bip_103_squashedLuke-Jr
Bip 103 squashed
2015-11-28Merge pull request #248 from btcdrak/bip112syncLuke-Jr
BIP112: Update document to match implementation
2015-11-26Merge pull request #243 from CodeShark/BIP0112_revisionsLuke-Jr
BIP-0112 minor revision to text.
2015-11-25Update deployment to be TBDBtcDrak
2015-11-25Use optimised script examplesBtcDrak
Taken from 20/11/15 version of deployable lightning
2015-11-24Fixup commentBtcDrak
2015-11-24More clearly define script execution failure pathwayBtcDrak
2015-11-23fix typoMichael Goldstein
2015-11-23BIP112: Update document to match implementationBtcDrak
2015-11-23Rename flags in code example to match implementationBtcDrak
2015-11-23Improve title, add encoding diagram and small fixupBtcDrak
2015-11-23Clarify (1 << 22) logicBtcDrak
2015-11-20Add note about free bits and correct deployment recommendationsBtcDrak
2015-11-20Update compatibility sectionBtcDrak
2015-11-20clarify specification furtherBtcDrak
2015-11-20Edits from kinoshitajonaBtcDrak
2015-11-20BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementationBtcDrak
2015-11-17Merge pull request #244 from sipa/bip62deadLuke-Jr
Mark BIP62 as withdrawn
2015-11-17Mark BIP62 as withdrawnPieter 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.
2015-11-17BIP-0112 minor revision to text.Eric Lombrozo
2015-11-15Merge pull request #195 from btcdrak/patch-3Gregory Maxwell
BIP-0001: Updates
2015-11-13Merge #241 from branch '2015-11-13-bip65-wording-fixes' of ↵Jeff Garzik
git://github.com/petertodd/bips
2015-11-13Reword motivation sectionPeter 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.
2015-11-13Clearer wordingPeter Todd
2015-11-13Use the term "malleability" rather than "mutability"Peter Todd
2015-11-13Refer to "Payment Channels" rather than "Micro-Payment Channels"Peter Todd
More generic terminology.
2015-11-13Minor: fix wordingPeter Todd
2015-11-13Merge pull request #237 from jtimon/bip99-2Luke-Jr
Bip99: Improvements
2015-11-13Merge pull request #240 from 6londe/patch-3Luke-Jr
typo fixed
2015-11-13typo fixedChanghoon Lee
trivial typo fixed
2015-11-10fixup! correctionsJorge Timón
2015-11-09adding Pieter Wuille's 'Block size following technological growthJonathan Wilkins
2015-11-09squashed versionJonathan Wilkins
2015-11-08Add bip99 to readmeJorge Timón
2015-11-08Improvements to Schism hardforks sectionJorge Timón
2015-11-08More corrections and improvementsJorge Timón