📅 Original date posted:2016-02-02
📝 Original message:My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki
The editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it
with his new proposed BIP :)
I really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned
the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. There was deep vetting,
lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his personal opinions to
accept the BIP.
That being said...
The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no idea
if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally
understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when people
who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against
you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very
centralized and discouraging.
I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP
commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing list
and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the
> > > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust
> value,
> > > it makes no sense to object to it.
> >
> > I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard
> > requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP
> > document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby
> > wallet vendors to implement it.
> >
> > While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature
> > itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression
> > that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.
>
> I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about
> this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself,
> in the hope you take the concerns into account.
>
> These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a
> BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally
> dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.
>
> Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement
> it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160202/2685c93f/attachment.html>;
Toby Padilla [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m9…huekt
2023-06-07 17:48:26
in reply to nevent1q…zhdz
Author Public Key
npub1m99yqj0pat7mwzsdczyn28z84ce47adngzqp9kzft4gc3xke52fqqhuektPublished at
2023-06-07 17:48:26Event JSON
{
"id": "1a112fe62ca890047e39032eed91e300afb201a69c00304134f608a77ed30932",
"pubkey": "d94a4049e1eafdb70a0dc089351c47ae335f75b3408012d8495d51889ad9a292",
"created_at": 1686160106,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e6ad981b1892ac87a5c86fa13a75e0b0a362e90adcdcbc91667d3a8c4dc867cc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e282bac274c6353389d5dc069313d0f63f2762e633d89115a46b28ea872ef370",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-02\n📝 Original message:My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74\n\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki\n\nThe editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it\nwith his new proposed BIP :)\n\nI really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned\nthe BIP. It seems like the process worked great. There was deep vetting,\nlots of back and forth and the editor put aside his personal opinions to\naccept the BIP.\n\nThat being said...\n\nThe mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no idea\nif this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally\nunderstand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when people\nwho *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against\nyou (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very\ncentralized and discouraging.\n\nI would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP\ncommenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing list\nand wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.\n\nOn Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, \"Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust\n\u003e value,\n\u003e \u003e \u003e it makes no sense to object to it.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard\n\u003e \u003e requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP\n\u003e \u003e document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby\n\u003e \u003e wallet vendors to implement it.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature\n\u003e \u003e itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression\n\u003e \u003e that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about\n\u003e this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself,\n\u003e in the hope you take the concerns into account.\n\u003e\n\u003e These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a\n\u003e BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally\n\u003e dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.\n\u003e\n\u003e Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement\n\u003e it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160202/2685c93f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b9c4ba67f53f26b1985893a19c287d1440311d623706bad5677356837189d581233feeedc103e68984ed6fe21c538e3f66d9d74503b09c501369698bab7ed405"
}