Reject BIP-0060 (three years inactivity) #792

1. 
   ysangkok commented at 9:05 pm on June 20, 2019: contributor

   According to BIP-0002, any person can request this.
2. Reject BIP-0060 (three years inactivity) 3b6a92973e
3. 
   luke-jr commented at 3:11 pm on July 23, 2019: member

   This is a confusing BIP. I guess it’s proposing adding the relay-txs flag to all version messages. Current nodes do this.
4. 
   ysangkok commented at 5:43 pm on July 25, 2019: contributor

   OK, if the BIP is bad, why not Reject it then? Proper documentation can be written in a separate BIP or elsewhere.
5. 
   luke-jr commented at 2:30 am on July 26, 2019: member

   It’s unclear to me if it’s Reject or Final.
6. 
   ysangkok commented at 4:34 am on June 26, 2020: contributor

   @luke-jr it’s silly to have a badly written BIP stuck in the Draft state… Can you explain the rationale for either Rejecting or marking as Final? Then those points could be discussed.
7. 
   maflcko commented at 11:51 am on June 26, 2020: member

   side-note: There is a protocol-version-bump collision between BIP 60 and BIP 61.

   It is up to implementations whether to implement BIP 60. If there are some implementations that implement it, it should be Final.

8. 
   luke-jr commented at 1:40 pm on June 26, 2020: member

   I wouldn’t call it a collision - you could just as well argue BIP 61 and BIP 60 must be implemented together?
9. 
   maflcko commented at 2:15 pm on June 26, 2020: member

   The protocol version number can not be used as an indicator whether BIP 61 (or BIP 60) is implemented
10. 
    ysangkok commented at 1:20 am on November 29, 2021: contributor

    @kallewoof Is there any chance that this can move ahead or should I close it?
11. afiiijooon approved
12. afiiijooon approved
13. 
    murchandamus commented at 8:05 pm on April 30, 2024: contributor

    It seems to me that BIP60 has not made progress in 11 years, and is not implemented by any software. According to BIP2, it should be moved to rejected. If it should rather be treated differently, this would require an amendment of our process.

    ACK 3b6a92973e5e1ab8fdfc1b3aa775d8e933d8146c

14. 
    murchandamus commented at 8:24 pm on April 30, 2024: contributor

    After reading the discussion on #1012, it may be better to hold off on merging this PR, as there is currently an on-going discussion about revising the BIP process per a successor to BIP2.
15. murchandamus added the label Process on May 9, 2024

Contributors
ysangkok luke-jr maflcko afiiijooon murchandamus

Labels
Process