📅 Original date posted:2021-04-25
📝 Original message:On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:
>> If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the
>> author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),
>
> It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to
> them all in due time, likely before the end of the month.
Please don't play dumb, it isn't a good look.
> Rather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the
> BIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or
> that the preexisting Core+Taproot client is "breaking" the spec. And to
> further their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special
> treatment.
I'd be curious who is doing that, because obviously I'd agree that merging something in a BIP doesn't really have any
special meaning. This, however, is a completely different topic from following the BIP process that you had a key hand
in crafting.
> I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment,
> and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP
> process.
Again, please don't play dumb, no one watching believes this - you've been active on the BIP repo on numerous PRs and
this has never in the past been the case.
> Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to
> (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST
> advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing" (to
> use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under
> their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin
> Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus).
>
> Luke
>
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 22:52:10
in reply to nevent1q…3dxm
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 22:52:10Event JSON
{
"id": "fde5ac0093499030c1ba1b9fd1a95521f5972a11d0763ca0c3185a2809b92556",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686178330,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"df836c08d17c8829c94bdff4bd50436435b585a258e1227991e1c4e4a55feeb7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cb45b782bf912e8f7214adee5eabf50fb7e50d0eac9060b7e16de6b7d9a941a3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-25\n📝 Original message:On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote:\n\u003e On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:\n\u003e\u003e If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the\n\u003e\u003e author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),\n\u003e \n\u003e It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to\n\u003e them all in due time, likely before the end of the month.\n\nPlease don't play dumb, it isn't a good look.\n\n\u003e Rather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the\n\u003e BIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or\n\u003e that the preexisting Core+Taproot client is \"breaking\" the spec. And to\n\u003e further their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special\n\u003e treatment.\n\nI'd be curious who is doing that, because obviously I'd agree that merging something in a BIP doesn't really have any \nspecial meaning. This, however, is a completely different topic from following the BIP process that you had a key hand \nin crafting.\n\n\u003e I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment,\n\u003e and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP\n\u003e process.\n\nAgain, please don't play dumb, no one watching believes this - you've been active on the BIP repo on numerous PRs and \nthis has never in the past been the case.\n\n\u003e Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to\n\u003e (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST\n\u003e advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as \"deliberately refusing\" (to\n\u003e use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under\n\u003e their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin\n\u003e Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus).\n\u003e \n\u003e Luke\n\u003e",
"sig": "ea8b0521d37cdcc7e61715b8bfd6face46a0cbeb6551b7ab253075c2ced227c3d05a3a50dfa58b73c8d54868c15e5d1dc2c35279388846752151577de06780f9"
}