📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips
>> repository,
>> > and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin
>> developers
>> > to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for
>> Tor to
>> > add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor
>> tactical
>> > wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it.
>>
>> I hope you're not seriously suggesting to censor a BIP because you feel it
>> is a bad idea.
>
> For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication
> platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by
> accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them.
We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that
repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on
proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github
is a historical artifact.
> I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips
> repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere.
Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's
more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there
community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference
implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons
to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a
BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend
against its usage.
--
Pieter
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 17:51:23
in reply to nevent1q…t75e
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 17:51:23Event JSON
{
"id": "82c5817c9c6e401a75318210ce45e2e8e7f90715c5d681ce661d458158b8c146",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686160283,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5039b46ff53fe0ad45fb1e565b7c7f05169b35d2126c2ee18198a6f3405f573",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8ecb6d7cc5537ebd78375a07675c57db0599315c522f56df3d0def89b93c4ccc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, \"Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips\n\u003e\u003e repository,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e developers\n\u003e\u003e \u003e to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for\n\u003e\u003e Tor to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor\n\u003e\u003e tactical\n\u003e\u003e \u003e wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I hope you're not seriously suggesting to censor a BIP because you feel it\n\u003e\u003e is a bad idea.\n\u003e\n\u003e For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication\n\u003e platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by\n\u003e accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them.\n\nWe? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that\nrepository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on\nproposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github\nis a historical artifact.\n\n\u003e I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips\n\u003e repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere.\n\nEditorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's\nmore a matter of process than of opinion. Things like \"Was there\ncommunity discussion?\", \"Is it relevant?\", \"Is there a reference\nimplementation?\". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons\nto an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a\nBIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend\nagainst its usage.\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "ce67c8b42897b2f4f6d37d4a179ac7ce81b56855971b1bb14f5c629b7d1b420688981f5b5c86d6fe12fd981e342daa27f0f7810895899a21d2b8bd90693047db"
}