Request for comments: Hardfork bit BIP #317

1. 
   jl2012 commented at 5:07 pm on February 4, 2016: contributor
2. Create hardforkbit.mediawiki 47690bae2a
3. luke-jr added the label New BIP on Feb 4, 2016
4. luke-jr added the label Needs number assignment on Feb 4, 2016
5. 
   luke-jr commented at 5:21 am on February 24, 2016: member

   @jl2012 Ping me if you decide you want to move forward with this, or let me know if I should close it.
6. 
   jtimon commented at 3:53 am on February 26, 2016: contributor

   Please, I would like a number for this BIP draft because I plan to refer it from bitcoin/#7566 and BIP99.
7. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 5:38 am on February 26, 2016: member

   Maybe it’s better to use something like jl2012-hardforkbit for now and refer to the actual bip number after merge?
8. 
   jl2012 commented at 1:02 pm on February 26, 2016: contributor

   @jtimon after reading soft-hardfork proposalss like http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.html and http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html , I’m not sure if this is a good idea
9. 
   jtimon commented at 9:20 pm on February 27, 2016: contributor

   @MarcoFalke what’s the cost of giving it a number before merging? I don’t think we’re merging any bips without a number anyway. @jl2012 those ideas are interesting but I don’t think they make this one less of a good idea (even if the others are incompatible and better). Remember that not all BIPs need to be adopted. But if you don’t want to continue persuing this, I understand. I can just talk about the hardfork bip in bip99 as originally planned instead of referring to this BIP. If that is the case, I guess we should close this PR though.
10. 
    jl2012 commented at 4:42 pm on February 29, 2016: contributor

    @jtimon I think you may still refer to this with the like to this PR. I’m closing this for now until someone really implement this
11. jl2012 closed this on Feb 29, 2016

    ---

12. 
    jtimon commented at 6:12 pm on March 1, 2016: contributor

    @jtimon I think you may still refer to this with the like to this PR. I’m closing this for now until someone really implement this

    Here’s an implementation (on top of my BIP9 implementation): https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/990dda87b258c1e8d4d35b1fcbae4106303664f0

    As you can see, the amount of code can be really small.

13. jl2012 cross-referenced this on Dec 29, 2016 from issue Repairing the large-work fork warning system by jl2012

Contributors
jl2012 luke-jr jtimon MarcoFalke

Labels
New BIP Needs number assignment