{"id":13633554,"url":"https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs","last_synced_at":"2025-04-18T14:32:52.467Z","repository":{"id":40387181,"uuid":"201516954","full_name":"HathorNetwork/rfcs","owner":"HathorNetwork","description":"Request for Comments focused on Hathor Network","archived":false,"fork":false,"pushed_at":"2024-11-04T19:58:45.000Z","size":2673,"stargazers_count":10,"open_issues_count":35,"forks_count":9,"subscribers_count":13,"default_branch":"master","last_synced_at":"2024-11-04T20:41:44.434Z","etag":null,"topics":[],"latest_commit_sha":null,"homepage":null,"language":null,"has_issues":true,"has_wiki":null,"has_pages":null,"mirror_url":null,"source_name":null,"license":"apache-2.0","status":null,"scm":"git","pull_requests_enabled":true,"icon_url":"https://github.com/HathorNetwork.png","metadata":{"files":{"readme":"README.md","changelog":null,"contributing":null,"funding":null,"license":"LICENSE-APACHE","code_of_conduct":null,"threat_model":null,"audit":null,"citation":null,"codeowners":null,"security":null,"support":null,"governance":null,"roadmap":null,"authors":null,"dei":null,"publiccode":null,"codemeta":null}},"created_at":"2019-08-09T17:58:01.000Z","updated_at":"2024-10-28T14:27:37.000Z","dependencies_parsed_at":"2023-10-04T07:49:47.979Z","dependency_job_id":"34b93d3a-f3bc-4fad-9a4d-1ec796885f78","html_url":"https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs","commit_stats":null,"previous_names":[],"tags_count":0,"template":false,"template_full_name":null,"repository_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/HathorNetwork%2Frfcs","tags_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/HathorNetwork%2Frfcs/tags","releases_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/HathorNetwork%2Frfcs/releases","manifests_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/HathorNetwork%2Frfcs/manifests","owner_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners/HathorNetwork","download_url":"https://codeload.github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/tar.gz/refs/heads/master","host":{"name":"GitHub","url":"https://github.com","kind":"github","repositories_count":223782524,"owners_count":17201797,"icon_url":"https://github.com/github.png","version":null,"created_at":"2022-05-30T11:31:42.601Z","updated_at":"2022-07-04T15:15:14.044Z","host_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub","repositories_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories","repository_names_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repository_names","owners_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners"}},"keywords":[],"created_at":"2024-08-01T23:00:48.158Z","updated_at":"2024-11-09T03:30:16.075Z","avatar_url":"https://github.com/HathorNetwork.png","language":null,"funding_links":[],"categories":["Documentation"],"sub_categories":[],"readme":"# Hathor RFCs\n[Hathor RFCs]: #hathor-rfcs\n\nMany changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be\nimplemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.\n\nSome changes though are \"substantial\", and we ask that these be put through a\nbit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Hathor community and\nthe core developers.\n\nThe \"RFC\" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and\ncontrolled path for new features to enter the network and official libraries,\nso that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction Hathor is evolving\nin.\n\n## Table of Contents\n[Table of Contents]: #table-of-contents\n\n- [Opening](#hathor-rfcs)\n- [Table of Contents]\n- [Summary of RFCs]\n- [When you need to follow this process]\n- [Before creating an RFC]\n- [What the process is]\n- [The RFC life-cycle]\n- [Reviewing RFCs]\n- [Implementing an RFC]\n- [RFC Postponement]\n- [Help this is all too informal!]\n- [License]\n\n## Summary of RFCs\n[Summary of RFCs]: #summary-of-rfcs\n\n### Finished RFCs (done, with a stable interface)\n\n| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |\n|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|\n| 1   | [RFC Process](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0001-rfc-process.md) | Done      | |\n\n### Accepted RFCs (accepted; may not be implemented yet)\n\n| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |\n|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|\n| 4   | [Creation of Tokens](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0004-tokens.md) | Accepted  | testnet-bravo |\n| 11   | [Token Deposit](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0011-token-deposit.md) | Accepted  | testnet-bravo |\n| MR-5   | [Multi-signature Transaction Outputs](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/multi-sig/text/0005-multi-sig.md) | Accepted | testnet-bravo |\n| 15  | [The Anatomy of a Transaction](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0015-anatomy-of-tx.md) | Accepted | - |\n| 27  | [Exchange Integration Guide](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0027-exchange-integration.md) | Draft | - |\n| 32  | [NFT Standard](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0032-nft-standard.md) | Accepted | - |\n| 44  | [Best Practices for Integrations](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0044-use-case-integration-best-practices.md) | Accepted | - |\n\n### Provisional RFCs (provisionally accepted; interface may still change)\n\n| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |\n|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|\n| MR-13  | [Peer-to-Peer Protocol: Handshaking \u0026 Control Messages](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/p2p-identity/text/0000-p2p-identity.md) | Draft | |\n| MR-17  | [Peer-to-peer Protocol: Synchronization](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/p2p-sync/text/0000-p2p-sync.md) | Draft | |\n| MR-6   | [Merged Mining with Bitcoin](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0006-merged-mining-with-bitcoin.md) | Draft | |\n| MR-7   | [Stratum Protocol](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/stratum/text/0000-stratum.md) | Draft | testnet-bravo |\n| MR-8   | [Transaction Header](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/transaction-header/text/0001-transaction-header.md) | Draft | testnet-bravo |\n\n### Open RFCs (under consideration)\n\n| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |\n|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|\n| MR-19  | [Consensus Protocol](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/consensus/text/0000-consensus.md) | Draft | |\n| MR-14  | [Token Captain](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/token-captain/text/0000-token-captain.md) | Draft | |\n| MR-9   | [Side-DAGs](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/side-dags/0000-side-dags.md) | Draft | |\n| MR-3   | [Nano Contracts: Oracles](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/1st-nano-contract/0000-nano-contracts.md) | Draft | |\n| MR-2   | [Summarize Blocks](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/summarizing-blocks/text/0000-summarizing-blocks.md) | Draft | |\n| 25  | [Peer-to-peer Protocol: Sync v2](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0025-p2p-sync-v2.md) | Draft | - |\n\n\n\n## When you need to follow this process\n[When you need to follow this process]: #when-you-need-to-follow-this-process\n\nYou need to follow this process if you intend to make \"substantial\" changes to\nthe Hathor protocol, network or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a\n\"substantial\" change is evolving based on community norms and varies depending\non what part of the ecosystem you are proposing to change, but may include the\nfollowing.\n\n- Any change that affects the transaction or block's serialization format.\n- Changes to the validation of transactions and blocks.\n- Changes to the opcodes of the script language.\n- Changes that affects the consensus of the network, i.e., which transactions\n  are voided and which are executed.\n- In general any feature that requires a soft or hard fork.\n\nSome changes do not require an RFC:\n\n- Rephrasing, reorganizing, refactoring, or otherwise \"changing shape does not\n  change meaning\".\n- Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria (warning\n  removal, speedup, better platform coverage, more parallelism, trap more\n  errors, etc.)\n- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-hathor, invisible\n  to users-of-hathor.\n\nIf you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through\nthe RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.\n\n## Before creating an RFC\n[Before creating an RFC]: #before-creating-an-rfc\n\nA hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. Low quality\nproposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit\ninto the near-term roadmap, may be quickly rejected, which can be demotivating\nfor the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of the RFC can make\nthe process smoother.\n\nAlthough there is no single way to prepare for submitting an RFC, it is\ngenerally a good idea to pursue feedback from other project developers\nbeforehand, to ascertain that the RFC may be desirable; having a consistent\nimpact on the project requires concerted effort toward consensus-building.\n\nThe most common preparations for writing and submitting an RFC include talking\nthe idea over on our Discord, Telegram, or WhatsApp groups, and occasionally\nposting \"pre-RFCs\" on the developer forum. You may file issues on this repo for\ndiscussion, but these are not actively looked at by core team.\n\nAs a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing project\ndevelopers, and particularly members of the core team is a good indication that\nthe RFC is worth pursuing.\n\n## What the process is\n[What the process is]: #what-the-process-is\n\nIn short, to get a major feature added to Hathor, one must first get the RFC\nmerged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is\n\"active\" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Hathor.\n\n- Fork the RFC repo [RFC repository]\n- Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where \"my-feature\" is\n  descriptive. don't assign an RFC number yet).\n- Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present\n  convincing motivation, demonstrate lack of understanding of the impact of the\n  design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be\n  poorly-received.\n- Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback\n  from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to revise it in\n  response.\n- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much\n  more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments. Feel\n  free to reach out to the RFC assignee in particular to get help identifying\n  stakeholders and obstacles.\n- The core team will discuss the RFC pull request, as much as possible in the\n  comment thread of the pull request itself. Offline discussion will be\n  summarized on the pull request comment thread.\n- RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives and\n  drawbacks are shown. You can make edits, big and small, to the RFC to clarify\n  or change the design, but make changes as new commits to the pull request, and\n  leave a comment on the pull request explaining your changes.  Specifically, do\n  not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the pull request.\n- At some point, a member of the core team will propose a \"motion for final\n  comment period\" (FCP), along with a *disposition* for the RFC (merge, close,\n  or postpone).\n- This step is taken when enough of the tradeoffs have been discussed that the\n  subteam is in a position to make a decision. That does not require consensus\n  amongst all participants in the RFC thread (which is usually impossible).\n  However, the argument supporting the disposition on the RFC needs to have\n  already been clearly articulated, and there should not be a strong consensus\n  *against* that position outside of the subteam. Subteam members use their best\n  judgment in taking this step, and the FCP itself ensures there is ample time\n  and notification for stakeholders to push back if it is made prematurely.\n  - For RFCs with lengthy discussion, the motion to FCP is usually preceded by a\n    *summary comment* trying to lay out the current state of the discussion and\n    major tradeoffs/points of disagreement.\n  - Before actually entering FCP, *all* members of the core team must sign off;\n    this is often the point at which many subteam members first review the RFC\n    in full depth.\n- The FCP lasts ten calendar days, so that it is open for at least 5 business\n  days. It is also advertised widely, e.g. in [Hathor's twitter][hathor-twitter].\n  This way all stakeholders have a chance to lodge any final objections before a\n  decision is reached.\n- In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or\n  closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, the\n  FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.\n\n## The RFC life-cycle\n[The RFC life-cycle]: #the-rfc-life-cycle\n\nOnce an RFC becomes \"active\" then authors may implement it and submit the\nfeature as a pull request to the Hathor repo. Being \"active\" is not a rubber\nstamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be\nmerged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to\nthe feature and are amenable to merging it.\n\nFurthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is \"active\" implies\nnothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does it imply\nanything about whether a Hathor developer has been assigned the task of\nimplementing the feature. While it is not *necessary* that the author of the RFC\nalso write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see an RFC\nthrough to completion: authors should not expect that other project developers\nwill take on responsibility for implementing their accepted feature.\n\nModifications to \"active\" RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. We strive\nto write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the\nfeature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged\nRFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next\nmajor release.\n\nIn general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very\nminor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should\nbe new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts as a\n\"very minor change\" is up to the core team to decide.\n\n## Reviewing RFCs\n[Reviewing RFCs]: #reviewing-rfcs\n\nWhile the RFC pull request is up, the core team may schedule meetings with the\nauthor and/or relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues in greater detail, and\nin some cases the topic may be discussed at a core team meeting. In either case\na summary from the meeting will be posted back to the RFC pull request.\n\nThe core team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks\nare well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the core team\nwill regularly issue decisions. When a decision is made, the RFC pull request\nwill either be merged or closed. In either case, if the reasoning is not clear\nfrom the discussion in thread, the core team will add a comment describing the\nrationale for the decision.\n\n## Implementing an RFC\n[Implementing an RFC]: #implementing-an-rfc\n\nSome accepted RFCs represent vital features that need to be implemented right\naway. Other accepted RFCs can represent features that can wait until some\narbitrary developer feels like doing the work. Every accepted RFC has an\nassociated issue tracking its implementation in the Hathor repository; thus that\nassociated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the team\nuses for all issues in the Hathor repository.\n\nThe author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author\n(like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after\nthe RFC has been accepted.\n\nIf you are interested in working on the implementation for an \"active\" RFC, but\ncannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask\n(e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).\n\n## RFC Postponement\n[RFC Postponement]: #rfc-postponement\n\nSome RFC pull requests are tagged with the \"postponed\" label when they are\nclosed (as part of the rejection process). An RFC closed with \"postponed\" is\nmarked as such because we want neither to think about evaluating the proposal\nnor about implementing the described feature until some time in the future, and\nwe believe that we can afford to wait until then to do so. Postponed pull\nrequests may be re-opened when the time is right. We don't have any formal\nprocess for that, you should ask members of the core team.\n\nUsually an RFC pull request marked as \"postponed\" has already passed an informal\nfirst round of evaluation, namely the round of \"do we think we would ever\npossibly consider making this change, as outlined in the RFC pull request, or\nsome semi-obvious variation of it.\" (When the answer to the latter question is\n\"no\", then the appropriate response is to close the RFC, not postpone it.)\n\n### Help this is all too informal!\n[Help this is all too informal!]: #help-this-is-all-too-informal\n\nThe process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present\ncircumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by consensus\nand community norms, not impose more structure than necessary.\n\n## License\n[License]: #license\n\nThis repository is currently in licensed under either of\n\n- Apache License, Version 2.0, ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or\n  http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)\n- MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)\n\n### Contributions\n[Contributions]: #contributions\n\nUnless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted\nfor inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be\ndual licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions.\n\n[RFC issue tracker]: https://github.com/hathor/rfcs/issues\n[RFC repository]: http://github.com/hathor/rfcs\n[hathor-twitter]: https://twitter.com/hathornetwork\n","project_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2FHathorNetwork%2Frfcs","html_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/projects/github.com%2FHathorNetwork%2Frfcs","lists_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2FHathorNetwork%2Frfcs/lists"}