BIP-99: fix footnotes and drop missing reference #1844

pull torrpriius wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from torrpriius:fix/update changing 1 files +16 −25

torrpriius commented at 4:41 pm on April 30, 2025: contributor

in bip-0099.mediawiki:347 in 80a554ab29 outdated

343@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ worth of blocks).
344 
345 [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki
346 
347-[non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork] TODO missing link
348+[non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.msg6176525#msg6176525

jonatack commented at 5:33 pm on May 3, 2025:

I’m not sure about this link; it doesn’t seem directly relevant?

0One possible result observed in the past[non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork]
1is that one of the chains rapidly disappears, but nothing indicates
2that this must always be the case.

jonatack commented at 5:36 pm on May 3, 2025: member

Unsure about the proposed link. It might be more useful to either fix the footnotes formatting so that they work, or remove them.
torrpriius commented at 1:23 pm on May 5, 2025: contributor

@jonatack I’ve updated the footnote formatting to match the rest of the document. The placeholder [non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork] has been replaced with a numbered reference [3], and all in-text mentions have been aligned accordingly. The link now points to a relevant Bitcointalk discussion that illustrates the concept of a “schism hardfork” described in that section.
murchandamus added the label Proposed BIP modification on May 7, 2025
jonatack commented at 6:11 pm on May 16, 2025: member

Hi @torrpriius, the footnote formatting looks like a good improvement. I am unconvinced by the proposed new link.
torrpriius commented at 2:31 pm on May 17, 2025: contributor

Hi @jonatack, i kept the [3] reference to stay consistent with the other footnotes and added a clear TODO in the footnote asking for a reliable source. This keeps the structure clean, and others can easily add the right link later when it’s found.

in bip-0099.mediawiki:173 in bc9747b825 outdated

169@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ maybe mc(bitcoinA) + mc(bitcoinB) = 0,
170 ...
171 
172 Schism hardforks have been compared to one type of altcoins called
173-"spinoffs"[spinoffs] that distribute all or part of its initial seigniorage to
174+"spinoffs"[3] that distribute all or part of its initial seigniorage to

murchandamus commented at 6:30 pm on May 20, 2025:

this reuses the [3] for a second reference.

in bip-0099.mediawiki:349 in bc9747b825 outdated

343@@ -344,15 +344,13 @@ worth of blocks).
344 
345 [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki
346 
347-[non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork] TODO missing link
348+[3] TODO: Replace with authoritative reference for the non-proportional Inflatacoin fork discussed here
349 
350-[spinoffs] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

murchandamus commented at 6:33 pm on May 20, 2025:

You accidentally dropped this reference.

murchandamus commented at 6:42 pm on May 20, 2025: contributor

Thank you for taking a look at how to improve the formatting of this document.
BIP99: Drop missing reference, fix formatting
Co-authored-by: Murch <murch@murch.one>
7ab94f8be4
murchandamus force-pushed on May 20, 2025
murchandamus commented at 9:29 pm on May 20, 2025: contributor

I dropped the missing reference instead of guessing at the open todo, and fixed the formatting of the footnotes by using the reference syntax.
murchandamus commented at 9:32 pm on May 20, 2025: contributor

@jonatack: Unless you think we should keep the prior open todo, this may be RFM.
jonatack renamed this:
~~BIP-99: Replace placeholder with relevant link for Inflatacoin fork~~
BIP-99: fix footnotes and drop missing reference
on May 21, 2025
jonatack commented at 8:58 pm on May 21, 2025: member

ACK 7ab94f8be45246581df3ecf658509c3c1f408d65

Thanks @torrpriius for updating and @murchandamus for the fixups.
jonatack commented at 8:59 pm on May 21, 2025: member

Updated the PR title/description.
jonatack merged this on May 21, 2025
jonatack closed this on May 21, 2025

Contributors
torrpriius jonatack murchandamus

Labels
Proposed BIP modification