Posted by Christopher Allen
Oct 24, 2023/23:08 UTC
In the email, Christopher Allen suggests that including the year and number in the year would be a good idea for the numbers mentioned. He mentions that at Blockchain Commons, they follow this practice for all research and "wallet improvement proposals". This approach helps to prevent the numbers from becoming too large like the current EIPs (Ethereum Improvement Proposals). Additionally, he proposes that the numbers should only be automatically offered if a maintainer does not reject them within three days. This would allow maintainers to focus on responding to obvious spam, and if a proposal is rejected, the moderator's name would be associated with it, rather than the current anonymous rejection process.
TLDR
We’ll email you summaries of the latest discussions from authoritative bitcoin sources, like bitcoin-dev, lightning-dev, and Delving Bitcoin.
We'd love to hear your feedback on this project?
Give Feedback