Peter Todd
7cd2a7bdbb
Fix missing case statement at beginning of specification
...
Wasn't being displayed on github; adding an empty line prior to the spec
seems to fix this.
2015-12-05 18:06:38 +08:00
Peter Todd
0feb1209d0
Remove space in BIP66
...
Seems to be how people are writing BIP's these days.
2015-12-05 17:57:43 +08:00
Peter Todd
aa7cbf77a6
Minor: fix capitalisation
2015-12-05 17:57:31 +08:00
Chris Priest
bdd7c9ff76
renamed file
2015-12-04 15:48:37 -08:00
Chris Priest
f9d64e782b
formatting changes
2015-12-04 14:41:46 -08:00
Chris Priest
a07c8b62b3
formatting changes
2015-12-04 14:40:38 -08:00
Chris Priest
e97833688d
removed reference to version 2
2015-12-04 14:40:01 -08:00
Chris Priest
d982c11f87
fixed formatting
2015-12-04 14:37:51 -08:00
Chris Priest
632bf07252
typo
2015-12-04 14:34:53 -08:00
Chris Priest
3ff75f1ad2
added part about version field
2015-12-04 14:32:24 -08:00
Wladimir J. van der Laan
9d3b68f8c4
Merge pull request #256 from techstoreclub/fix_bip0001_type
...
BIP-0001 Should be labeled as "Process" Type
2015-12-04 12:06:07 +01:00
Andy Chase
6f0c335b18
BIP-0001 Should be labeled as "Process" Type
...
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.
2015-12-04 02:48:43 -08:00
Chris Priest
bec0d9e8f6
added 'needed to implement' section
2015-12-02 14:44:26 -08:00
Wladimir J. van der Laan
b1ae7bad0f
Merge pull request #255 from bitcoin/2015_12_bip1
...
Change BIP1 to status Active
2015-12-02 12:30:07 +01:00
Chris Priest
a5093f1c4a
added more stuff
2015-12-01 13:14:55 -08:00
Wladimir J. van der Laan
7576a135dd
Change BIP1 to status Active
...
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)."
2015-12-01 21:04:24 +01:00
jl2012
71dd5c44e8
Full description of the behavior of the OP_CLTV
2015-12-02 02:03:30 +08:00
Chris Priest
bd5e1ead70
added txver2
2015-11-30 16:40:31 -08:00
jl2012
ac4cd1d46c
Corrections with the conditions for script failure
2015-12-01 01:47:16 +08:00
Luke-Jr
0cd94c9f72
Merge pull request #245 from btcdrak/bip68sync
...
BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementation
2015-11-28 22:33:57 +00:00
BtcDrak
a8e0d0f4c7
Small fixup
2015-11-28 22:30:58 +00:00
Luke-Jr
0ce74af5e8
Merge pull request #249 from bitstein/master
...
BIP47: fix typo
2015-11-28 20:46:46 +00:00
Luke-Jr
af7c75f40a
Merge pull request #238 from jwilkins/bip_103_squashed
...
Bip 103 squashed
2015-11-28 19:16:55 +00:00
Luke-Jr
dd208025cd
Merge pull request #248 from btcdrak/bip112sync
...
BIP112: Update document to match implementation
2015-11-28 19:14:04 +00:00
Dionysis Zindros
7abd750988
Fix small typo in BIP 0016
2015-11-28 04:27:46 +02:00
Luke-Jr
824284d422
Merge pull request #243 from CodeShark/BIP0112_revisions
...
BIP-0112 minor revision to text.
2015-11-26 00:27:06 +00:00
BtcDrak
86d1358256
Update deployment to be TBD
2015-11-25 18:53:09 +00:00
BtcDrak
0026fcb929
Use optimised script examples
...
Taken from 20/11/15 version of deployable lightning
2015-11-25 18:48:39 +00:00
BtcDrak
8d85335f2a
Fixup comment
2015-11-24 17:44:54 +00:00
BtcDrak
d30f1c6d0b
More clearly define script execution failure pathway
2015-11-24 16:01:53 +00:00
XBTdev
421c88ca2e
add copay link to bip44 compatible wallets list
...
add copay link to bip44 compatible wallets list
2015-11-24 00:54:04 -08:00
Michael Goldstein
565cc313a6
fix typo
2015-11-23 15:14:59 -06:00
BtcDrak
4048f45316
BIP112: Update document to match implementation
2015-11-23 20:56:43 +00:00
BtcDrak
8ad8cad875
Rename flags in code example to match implementation
2015-11-23 09:53:31 +00:00
BtcDrak
83fc19d97a
Improve title, add encoding diagram and small fixup
2015-11-23 09:53:31 +00:00
BtcDrak
f26cc0c4d3
Clarify (1 << 22) logic
2015-11-23 09:53:31 +00:00
BtcDrak
060c37f6d5
Add note about free bits and correct deployment recommendations
2015-11-20 18:56:00 +00:00
BtcDrak
c141645a1f
Update compatibility section
2015-11-20 18:56:00 +00:00
BtcDrak
7d7083f722
clarify specification further
2015-11-20 18:56:00 +00:00
BtcDrak
2bc1979601
Edits from kinoshitajona
2015-11-20 15:11:01 +00:00
BtcDrak
b5bc89a67c
BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementation
2015-11-20 10:52:05 +00:00
Luke-Jr
641b91ba28
Merge pull request #244 from sipa/bip62dead
...
Mark BIP62 as withdrawn
2015-11-17 21:39:55 +00:00
Pieter Wuille
916142e742
Mark BIP62 as withdrawn
...
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 21:46:14 +01:00
Eric Lombrozo
cc90614074
BIP-0112 minor revision to text.
2015-11-17 07:39:54 -05:00
Gregory Maxwell
989f276dcb
Merge pull request #195 from btcdrak/patch-3
...
BIP-0001: Updates
2015-11-15 22:57:36 +00:00
Jeff Garzik
d0cab0379a
Merge #241 from branch '2015-11-13-bip65-wording-fixes' of git://github.com/petertodd/bips
2015-11-13 12:44:59 -05:00
Peter Todd
5d0ae1caa3
Reword motivation section
...
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 12:33:49 -05:00
Peter Todd
c912e616d3
Clearer wording
2015-11-13 12:19:53 -05:00
Peter Todd
abeaa1be10
Use the term "malleability" rather than "mutability"
2015-11-13 12:17:23 -05:00
Peter Todd
f6a5bf2c5e
Refer to "Payment Channels" rather than "Micro-Payment Channels"
...
More generic terminology.
2015-11-13 12:14:19 -05:00
