Cash Improvement Proposals (CHIPs and Proto CHIPs) List

CHIPs
#15

Letā€™s wait for those CHIPs ownerā€™s confirmation.
@joshmg @proteusguy

#16

List and related posts updated with @joshmg and @proteusguy confirmations.

#17

New CHIP :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes
#18

New CHIP

#19

@Leandrodimarco should we rename the thread linked for CHIP: Bigger Script Integers too? I think it should be CHIP 2021-03 Bigger Script Integers.

(This one:)

2 Likes
#20

I can change that if @Jonathan_Silverblood is also ok with it. I wrote that before there was a CHIP.

1 Like
#21

Iā€™m OK with it.

[posts must be at least 20 characters, so adding filler text here]

2 Likes
#22

Done.

(filler textttt)

#23

As agreed I updated postā€™s category and relevant tags.
Minimum 20 characters posts are thought to prevent spam (default setting).
We can reduce it if that make sense or add more reactions :slight_smile:.

#24

After the June 1 BCH network discussion, the participants decided to extract the Ranged Script Numbers component of the PMv3 CHIP into a separate CHIP to make it a bit easier to both review and reference externally. I just finished splitting it out here:

And here is the new BCR thread:

1 Like
#25

New CHIP proposal:

https://github.com/JavierGonzalez/BMP/blob/master/static/CHIP-2021-08_Join_and_support_BMP_for_BCH_development.md

#26

I hope you donā€™t take the following as negative criticism, but to be honest, your post left me a bit confused. Intending to express the root of such confusion, here are some comments:

First, you posted a minimal phrase saying ā€œNew CHIP proposalā€ followed by a simple link. Iā€™m not sure what your expectations are with that.

Second, that link redirects to a Github repo that resembles, at some extent, CHIPs proposed structure but at a content level still seems to be at a very early stage in its analytical development, particularly if we compare it with other CHIPs.

Third, in the same repo, the Bitcoin Unlimited forum is cited as the place for relevant discussion for such a ā€œCHIPā€. There is no post about it in this Bitcoin Cash Research forum, and itā€™s not that there has to be, but I have to admit that this cross-reference adds some confusion to the matter. Here is my question, is this intended to be a CHIP or a BUIP? Or both?

Fourth, in the same repo, as a summary, you mention that Bitcoin Cash Node should supportā€¦ such and such. I donā€™t think the idea behind CHIPs is to tell nodes implementations what they should do or should not. CHIPs, if Iā€™m not mistaken, are a process through which different actors in the ecosystem are empowered to bring ideas and proposals. Each node implementation has, or should have, the freedom to put those proposed ideas into practice or reject them according to the criteria they deem most convenient, being accountable to the community. I have no intention of speaking on BCHNā€™s behalf, but if your wish is for them to implement BMP protocol, perhaps you should speak to them directly; I donā€™t know if there is a need for a CHIP. Again, just my opinion.

All these points raised some doubts, so if you donā€™t mind, I would like to hear the opinion of other participants of this forum about it.

#27

  1. I want to open the debate to support the initiative. Please tell me what else I should do.

  2. The proposal is 90% political, 10% technology. And the necessary coding has already been done by me in my spare time. But when the debate is opened you can ask for the info you see missing.

  3. Both. This proposal is for all Bitcoin Cash protocol dev teams. Knuth already supports it. BU is debating it in the forum.

  4. Freetrader from BCHN invited me to make the proposal in the form of CHIP, but I donā€™t know what is the exact format desired. I doubt something like this has been attempted before. I intend decentralized decision making via delegated hashpower voting to involve all dev teams.

Wait, I have taken for granted that this forum is part of the BCHN space. Isnā€™t that correct? In any case, this initiative is addressed to all dev teams, as they are all involved in the development coordination.

Should I create the thread myself in this forum? I try to follow the guidelines. I am waiting for an answer.

#28

Sorry that this answer took longer than expected. I gave it a little time to see if other opinions would come through.

Some relevant clarifications about this forum and personal thoughts on CHIPs:

  1. This forum intends to be unaffiliated ground, as it was well described by one of its power users :grinning:. In that sense, this forum is not part of the ā€œBCHN spaceā€, just part of BCH ecosystem. The forum indeed has strong ties with BCHN, like other node implementations and relevant projects running on the BCH network. The topics brought and discussed here by users are not necessarily specific to BCHN but usually a superset, I would say.

  2. I do think that opening a debate around a given idea is a great way to bring exposure and awareness about it. Thatā€™s precisely the purpose of this forum. In that sense, I support @freetrader recommendation for you to make a proposal in the form of a CHIP.

  3. About the CHIP itself, Iā€™m afraid I cannot be of much help, as I have no authority to define how a CHIP should or should not be. Nobody has. But different proposals have been made, and you can find them here in this forum exploring CHIPs category, e.g., CHIP Guidelines and CHIPs: A more detailed process recommendation. It would help to check other CHIPs, particularly the implemented ones (or close to implementation), and follow their example in terms of structure, organization, and mentioned aspects. There is great value on them.

  4. Maybe you donā€™t need to create a CHIP straight away. If you intend to feel the waters, you can create a topic/thread in this forum (or any of your choice), present your ideas and see what the discussion brings. Or maybe not, maybe you consider your idea mature enough for a CHIP. Itā€™s your call. But I would encourage you to check other CHIPs. They are, in general, quite solid and present relevant information based on extended analysis by their authors.

  5. Probably you already know this, but it never hurts to remember it; the inclusion of a preCHIP/CHIP in this forum does not bind nodes to implement the proposed change (consensus or not) in their next or any update. It does not even bind them to discuss it. Each node or relevant project has its own decision-making mechanism, which does not go through this forum in any way. That is the idea behind my previous comment about this forum not being the space of any particular node or project, but of everyone who wants to participate. There is work to be done by the proponent of a change in face of relevant stakeholders to see the proposal materialized.

I hope it helps.

1 Like
#29

Hey @Leandrodimarco just a heads up that Iā€™ve withdrawn PMv3 and the Ranged Script Numbers CHIPs in favor of CashTokens:

Thanks!

#30

Is this list still updated? :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I made a CHIP which can be added to the overview

3 Likes
#31

Looks like this could be updated? Would be great to see an updated list including algorithmic blocksize, UTXO fast sync, CashTokens, Introspection Opcodes, Bigger Script Integers, etc all with updated statuses.

2 Likes
#32

There is also our network upgrade on Saturdays, although Iā€™d class that as ā€œinactiveā€.

Weā€™re not going to make this cycle, but in the new year perhaps we can have a fresh push on trying to convince people and sharpen up our arguments and docs.

2 Likes
#33

Iā€™d really like to rework that draft. I think this idea has a lot of merit.

#34

@system Who can update this list? Would be helpful!