Major BIP 360 Update

In the ongoing discussion regarding the naming and clarity of a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP), two potential names were proposed by the authors, with P2MR being favored over P2QB. The preference for P2MR stems from its accuracy in describing the BIP's actual behavior, whereas P2QB, though related to the intent behind the BIP, might not fully encapsulate its essence. Specifically, it was noted that BIP-360, as currently drafted, does not exclude the use of EC opcodes internally, a detail that underscores the importance of precise terminology.

Further elaboration was sought on whether the only concerns raised were related to the proposal's name and the specificity of its spending rules. These inquiries highlight the critical role of clear, unambiguous documentation in the assessment and potential adoption of BIPs within the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Clarity is emphasized not just for its intrinsic value but also because it facilitates a broader understanding and critique of proposals by community members and stakeholders. Importantly, these discussions and clarifications are positioned neutrally, without leaning towards either support or opposition to the BIP's adoption. The focus remains squarely on ensuring that the proposal is communicated effectively and that its provisions are understood as intended.