You've already forked 2021-CHIPs
Record statement
This commit is contained in:
@@ -73,6 +73,12 @@ Discussion on [bitcoincashresearch](https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/154)
|
||||
**Andrew Stone, developer Bitcoin Unlimited**
|
||||
> Awemany (working as a BU dev) and I originally brought this problem to the BCH community’s attention. When ABC chose to limit at 100 bytes I pointed out this was idiocy way back before the original fork, and was ignored. So BU is happy to support a change that fixes yet-another-dumb-decision autocratically made during the ABC days. ([source](https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/154/36))
|
||||
|
||||
**Josh Green, developer Bitcoin Verde**
|
||||
After merging PR #5, fixing the concept to be "larger than 65 bytes"
|
||||
|
||||
> We've held the opinion that either is fine. So if BCHN is taking that path then we're happy to align with that. ([source](https://t.me/bitcoinverde/3542))
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Copyright Notice
|
||||
|
||||
Copyright (C) 2021 Tom Zander
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
||||
# CHIP-YYYY-MM-Short-Descriptive-Memorable-Name
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Short and easy to understand intent of this CHIP.
|
||||
|
||||
- Version: (important so that statements can refer to specific versions)
|
||||
- Is consensus change: (basically yes/no)
|
||||
- Owner: (the individual who is accountable for organization, progress, and ultimately the outcome of this CHIP. May be one of the contributors)
|
||||
- Contributors: (people who have made historical or ongoing contributions to the content of this CHIP. Being a contributor does not imply being an owner, and contributors do not necessarily share an owner's work in ensuring progress)
|
||||
- Discussion URL:
|
||||
- Full change history URL: (for example, a canonical git repository of your choosing)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Motivation and Benefits
|
||||
|
||||
For example, impact on various stakeholder groups.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Costs and Risks
|
||||
|
||||
For example, backward incompatibilities, SPV server upgrades, wallet upgrades, operational changes for businesses, risk of polarization.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Ongoing Costs and Risks
|
||||
|
||||
For example, increased complexity, increased maintenance, impact on other future changes, increased operating costs, perception of holders.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Description
|
||||
|
||||
For example, early in the CHIP's life, basic outlines of possibilities, and later in the CHIP's life, specifically architecture, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementations
|
||||
|
||||
### Specification
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Cases
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Evaluation of Alternatives
|
||||
|
||||
For example, do nothing, plausible alternatives.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Security considerations
|
||||
|
||||
For example, network DOS, application DOS, user double spends, miner double spends.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## List of major stakeholders
|
||||
|
||||
For example, "Wallet projects such as...", "Mining pools such as...".
|
||||
Note that these are not sponsors, but stakeholders that the CHIP owner thinks need to engage with the proposal.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Statements with version
|
||||
|
||||
For example, links and optionally summaries of statements from node developers, businesses, pools, miners, wallets, infrastructure operators, application developers, service operators.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## License
|
||||
|
||||
For example, MIT or CC0.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user