Thanks theZerg for your response. You are one of of the first people to give me detailed comments instead of just explaining to me what a BIP is and how to submit one.



Timeline that's an important point. I've gotten that echoed from a few people now. I was thinking that a re-submit could be called if more time is needed but I think your method of allowing the author to have control over the pace makes a lot of sense.



What does accepted mean? "Accepted" is the hardest thing to grasp in this paper. There's just no way to force client authors, users, and miners, to integrate and use a change, even if one is accepted by my process. I.e. I'm trying to define what "accepted" even means, but maybe I should use different words that don't have baggage. Like my process could indicate "community greenlight" and client authors who refuse to follow "community greenlight" can do so, but they are going against the wishes of the community and that becomes obvious. Other client others (like btcd) might follow the greenlight recommendation instead and users are free to switch to that. Then there could also be "community redlight", and "no decision reached" in which there was conflicting views.



If I go this route, I could use the word "accepted" to mean something like "appears in the longest fork", or "is in use by multiple clients, merchants, & users" (for things like urls that aren't blockchain-related).



How to prove stake? "How groups prove their stake" is the hard question that has to be addressed in this proposal or any. I've pushed forward several recommendations but there's no perfect solution that everyone will accept. For users, in the comments I suggested a "community sample" method that requires that only a random few people in a group to give up their privacy.



Ratios The "accepted" or "greenlit" standard in my proposal is defined as: least 70% of the represented percentage stake in 3 out of the 4 Bitcoin segments. It's true that it seems weird to have 1 group in a segment by itself (seems like too much power), you have to recall that committees can consist of several groups that have agreed to act together. If the 1 miner group had conflicts they'd separate to make public both their views.



I'm interested in if you think that definition should be changed or if you are worried about those risks.