Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:47:33 +0000
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <jukOxw5FcU6syw4uF2sbFIMPK0RN1nUbUmu5G4zG4w5ZoU2gLOB2vGwHZ3_vEYyJQUQQDIc3w-C0t1anDDAz1tTry6-nCjG5a3nttuoARQc=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zac+rMC/c+qTmSxY@erisian.com.au>
References: <Zac+rMC/c+qTmSxY@erisian.com.au>
Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP process friction
Precedence: list

Hi AJ,

I like the idea and agree with everything you shared in the email except on=
e thing:

> So I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
> thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at:
>=20
> * https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana

I think "authority" is a strong word especially in bitcoin and this process=
 could even work with BINN (Bitcoin Inquisition Numbers And Names). IANA (a=
 function of ICANN) is different thing altogether which was founded by US g=
overnment.

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, January 17th, 2024 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> Hi all,
>=20
> Just under three years ago there was some discussion about the BIPs repo,
> with the result that Kalle became a BIPs editor in addition to Luke, eg:
>=20
> * https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log
> * https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/0188=
59.html
>=20
> It remains, however, quite hard to get BIPs merged into the repo, eg
> the following PRs have been open for quite some time:
>=20
> * #1408: Ordinal Numbers; opened 2023-01-21, editors comments:
> Kalle:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1421641390
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1435389476
>=20
> Luke:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1429146796
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1438831607
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1465016571
>=20
> * #1489: Taproot Assets Protocol; opened 2023-09-07, editors comments:
> Kalle: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1489#issuecomment-1855079626
> Luke: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1489#issuecomment-1869721535j
>=20
> * #1500: OP_TXHASH; opened 2023-09-30, editors comments:
> Luke:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1500#pullrequestreview-1796550166
> https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1735701932520382839
>=20
> The range of acceptable BIPs seems to also be becoming more limited,
> such that mempool/relay policy is out of scope:
>=20
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1524#issuecomment-1869734387
>=20
> Despite having two editors, only Luke seems to be able to assign new
> numbers to BIPs, eg:
>=20
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458#issuecomment-1597917780
>=20
> There's also been some not very productive delays due to the editors
> wanting backwards compatibility sections even if authors don't think
> that's necessary, eg:
>=20
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1372#issuecomment-1439132867
>=20
> Even working out whether to go back to allowing markdown as a text format
> is a multi-month slog due to process confusion:
>=20
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1504
>=20
> Anyway, while it's not totally dysfunctional, it's very high friction.
>=20
> There are a variety of recent proposals that have PRs open against
> inquisition; up until now I've been suggesting people write a BIP, and
> have been keying off the BIP number to signal activation. But that just
> seems to be introducing friction, when all I need is a way of linking
> an arbitrary number to a spec.
>=20
> So I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
> thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at:
>=20
> * https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana
>=20
> If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals that don't have
> anything to do with inquisition, that's fine; I'm intending to apply the
> policies I think the BIPs repo should be using, so feel free to open a PR=
,
> even if you already know I think your idea is BS on its merits. If someon=
e
> wants to write an automatic-merge-bot for me, that'd also be great.
>=20
> If someone wants to reform the BIPs repo itself so it works better,
> that'd be even better, but I'm not volunteering for that fight.
>=20
> Cheers,
> aj
>=20
> (It's called "numbers and names" primarily because that way the acronym
> amuses me, but also in case inquisition eventually needs an authoritative
> dictionary for what "cat" or "txhash" or similar terms refer to)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev