gavinandresen wrote:BIP105 is complicated and too little (8MB max? What's the justification for that number?)
Well, I disagree with the unreasonable 8mb lock too. But, there is a 32mb lock in BIP 100 and a 32 GB lock in BIP 101 as well. For me, all these are magic number.
gavinandresen wrote:And I find BIP106 hard to parse; two proposals squashed into one BIP is a bad idea.
It is just a draft and it is not hard to consider it as two different BIP, say BIP 106a & BIP 106b. BIP 100 & BIP 103 does not even exist in proposed BIP format under Bitcoin Github repo.
gavinandresen wrote:The IETF has a requirement that there be working code behind an RFC, and I think the BIP process would be better if it had a similar requirement.
It is easy to write a BIP.
It is harder to implement whatever you've proposed.
And it is even harder still to convince anybody else to run the code you've proposed.
Is that a logic to deny a logical idea? Let us assume, the author does not even know how to code. So, what? If he has a logical idea, that wont be discussed and coded in, if accepted? There are many BIPs in Github repo written by one person and coded by another. That does not make any difference.
gavinandresen wrote:I find it hard to take seriously anybody who is only willing to do the easy part.
We are not discussing the person. We are discussing the idea...