Quote from: franky1 on February 23, 2016, 04:22:11 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 23, 2016, 02:37:43 PM

Quote from: franky1 on February 22, 2016, 06:55:01 PM

bips should not be a core controlled thing.. for instance gavin recently made a bip that ANYONE core/xt/bu/bitcoinj could all implement .. by having individual bips for individual companies will just cause more debates and make bip 100001 something we would see soon..

bips should be something ANYONE can implement and not be branded/copywrited/limited to a company.
bips should be in draftform and tweaked and improved on and then finalised.. rather then making 100000 different bips until one of them sticks

Actually, along these lines, bibs should not have terms that force an issue and change consensus terms that appear to be forced on the Bitcoin community. I'm talking about apparent hard forking terms in xt and classic.

totally agree. thats why i said no one should control and have veto rights over bitcoin to force anything.
bips are the first step (idea).. which when finalised its then moved into a code github where its put into a test client and checked for bugs and stuff.
so a bip is not forcing anything. its just an 'ideahouse' that should be utilised more
and when a bip is created should not just be one bip for companyA, one bip for companyB, etc... its instead a draft that all ABCDEF, etc all get involved in tweaking and developing and getting to an agreement. and then if its useful, finalized... or leaving if as draft if they cannot agree or find it not useful.

that way instead of having bip 101,102,103,104,105... there is just one bip eg 101 that has gone through 4 tweaks and decisions until there is a final bip 101 that the majority agree with..

which over the last year of the latest debates by organising things better we could have resulted as a bip 10X stating a 2mb with a 3-6month grace period
rather than 101,102,103,104,105 that has no collaboration at all and no tweaking and settling differences within just 1 number.

the current way bips are used is like throwing 5 lumps of dogs mess at a wall and seeing which one will stick, rather than being more involved and discussed and tweaked/refined.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 23, 2016, 02:37:43 PM

Yes I realize that there has been a lot bandied about regarding what is consensus and what does it take to achieve it, and there may be some practical difficulties getting agreement about what is consensus and what it takes to achieve it.

that is because the current system is to have 5 pieces of dogs mess and then say lets throw it and see which sticks..
again if they instead worked on just one piece and tweaked it to make it the stickiest and least smelly version they can find. and then it would be easier to throw it at the wall knowing that there is less hit and miss

I don't have a problem with various competing BIPs - at least when the initial drafts are proposed - yet I agree with you, that likely there needs to be some attempts at combining the bips in order to find mutual agreements among the bips, to the extent that collaboration and consolidation is possible. So, for example, if someone or a group proposes a BIP that is very similar to another BIP, then there should be some discussion within the new BIP concerning why a new BIP was needed, rather than working on improving and/or attempting to amend the previous related bip.

So maybe there could be some clarification and/or fixing of this BIP process, if it seems that in practice the current bip process is not achieving some of its apparent original intended outcomes... that is collaboration and improvement and ultimately attempts at consensus building, to the extent possible.