BIP39: update status from Proposed to Final #1677
Conversation
scgbckbone
commented
Oct 5, 2024
scgbckbone
commented
- also widely deployed
bip-0039.mediawiki
Outdated
| @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ | |||
| Pavol Rusnak <[email protected]> | |||
| Aaron Voisine <[email protected]> | |||
| Sean Bowe <[email protected]> | |||
| Comments-Summary: Unanimously Discourage for implementation | |||
| Comments-Summary: No comments yet. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For context, the "Unanimously Discourage for implementation" assessment was added as part of a wider change in #500. Seems fine to update if out of date / community agrees. Correcting myself, it depends on the content of the comments wiki page as mentioned in #1413 (comment).
More info per BIP 2:
Summary tones may be chosen from the following, but this BIP does not intend to cover all possible nuances and other summaries may be used as needed:
* No comments yet.
* Unanimously Recommended for implementation
* Unanimously Discourage for implementation
* Mostly Recommended for implementation, with some Discouragement
* Mostly Discouraged for implementation, with some Recommendation
.../...
To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP, and neither should be directly influencing the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for putting this clearly in the title of your PR, unlike the last attempt to remove this language #1413 (which I eventually had to find using git log --all).
But I don't think you'll get "community agreement" on deleting this language entirely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@apoelstra thank you for the link to #1413 for more context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But I don't think you'll get "community agreement" on deleting this language entirely.
even tho I agree to what is stated in #1413, I think the ship has already sailed and most of the wallets already implement it. "Unanimously Discourage for implementation" was therefore pointless back then and even more now.
If necessary, it would be better to add a Shortcomings(or similar) section to this BIP and "copy" the comment from #1413 which at least give reader some useful info, instead of just fuding with "Unanimously Discourage for implementation"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@scgbckbone I've edited my comments above. It may be a good idea to drop this here and discuss a change to the comment summary in a separate PR (assuming that updating the comment summary isn't incompatible with a Final status), and/or add relevant expert review to the wiki.
If necessary, it would be better to add a
Shortcomings(or similar) section to this BIP
Agree, i.e. per @apoelstra's suggestions in #1413 (comment), perhaps best to do that before updating the BIP status to Final.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While I agree that the comments feature of the existing BIP Process has failed to be meaningfully adopted, I don’t think this change is in line with the currently active process. I would agree with BIP 39 being moved to Final, but I would suggest that you defer the change regarding the comment summary until a new BIP Process is adopted that supports the removal (as e.g. the one that I have been working on would).
jonatack
changed the title
scgbckbone
force-pushed
the
bip39_final
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ac2aa8e
to
f039233
Compare
|
cc BIP author @prusnak |
|
NAK to changes out of process |
|
Honestly, I could not care less what this repository says for this BIP. Reality is that literally all hardware wallets and vast majority of software wallets use BIP39. The BIP process back in the days was a disaster. I recommend all wallets to consider using SLIP39 which has better wordlist, better checksum and can generate shamir secret shares. The only drawback is that the backup is now 20 words instead of 12 (for 128 bit of entropy). |
bip-0039.mediawiki
Outdated
| @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ | |||
| Pavol Rusnak <[email protected]> | |||
| Aaron Voisine <[email protected]> | |||
| Sean Bowe <[email protected]> | |||
| Comments-Summary: Unanimously Discourage for implementation | |||
| Comments-Summary: No comments yet. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While I agree that the comments feature of the existing BIP Process has failed to be meaningfully adopted, I don’t think this change is in line with the currently active process. I would agree with BIP 39 being moved to Final, but I would suggest that you defer the change regarding the comment summary until a new BIP Process is adopted that supports the removal (as e.g. the one that I have been working on would).
murchandamus
added
the
PR Author action required
scgbckbone
force-pushed
the
bip39_final
branch
from
f039233
to
829afcc
Compare
|
I've reverted the comment back & rebased. Moving to final is "good enough" for now. |
jonatack
changed the title
jonatack
removed
the
PR Author action required
|
ACK 829afcc |
