Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 01:28:17 +0000
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <BYM-J2z1pEyXcmR305xM-uh4wNaRs6olvZa_dEhqZlr6_wO4s9dUANyTYg3ihdRJyJuTRHVr2nQpPIjMQeSJXH6deKxteFgBnMGhOdbS1gE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5b641ddc-a30b-4dd7-2481-6d9cdb459359@dashjr.org>
References: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTaSwtvctmIiF74k@petertodd.org> <ZTawwRqGN4XUUu8C@camus>
 <5b641ddc-a30b-4dd7-2481-6d9cdb459359@dashjr.org>
Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinals BIP PR
Precedence: list

Hi Luke,

> Maybe we need a 3rd BIP editor. Both Kalle and myself haven't had time
> to keep up. There are several PRs far more important than Ordinals
> nonsense that need to be triaged and probably merged.

I don't think adding another editor solves the problem discussed in this th=
read.=20
Last time we had similar situation and Kalle was added as editor instead of=
 making BIP
process decentralized. It was discussed in this [thread][0].

BIP editors can have personal opinions and bias but if it affects PRs getti=
ng merged,
then repo has no use except for a few developers.

> The issue with Ordinals is that it is actually unclear if it's eligible
> to be a BIP at all, since it is an attack on Bitcoin rather than a
> proposed improvement.=20

What makes it an attack on bitcoin? Some users want to use their money in a=
 different way.
How is it different from taproot assets and other standards to achieve simi=
lar goals?

Some users and developers believe drivechain is an attack on bitcoin, BIP 4=
7 is considered bad,
use of OP_RETURN in colored coins is controversial, increasing blocksize is=
 not an improvement etc.
Still these BIPs exist in the same repository.

> proposed improvement. There is a debate on the PR whether the
> "technically unsound, ..., or not in keeping with the Bitcoin
> philosophy." or "must represent a net improvement." clauses (BIP 2) are
> relevant. Those issues need to be resolved somehow before it could be
> merged.

Can we remove terms like "philosophy", "net improvement" etc. from BIP 2? B=
ecause they could mean different
things for different people.

[0]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018=
859.html


/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, October 23rd, 2023 at 11:59 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> Everything standardized between Bitcoin software is eligible to be and
> should be a BIP. I completely disagree with the claim that it's used for
> too many things.
>=20
> SLIPs exist for altcoin stuff. They shouldn't be used for things related
> to Bitcoin.
>=20
> BOLTs also shouldn't have ever been a separate process and should really
> just get merged into BIPs. But at this point, that will probably take
> quite a bit of effort, and obviously cooperation and active involvement
> from the Lightning development community.
>=20
> Maybe we need a 3rd BIP editor. Both Kalle and myself haven't had time
> to keep up. There are several PRs far more important than Ordinals
> nonsense that need to be triaged and probably merged.
>=20
> The issue with Ordinals is that it is actually unclear if it's eligible
> to be a BIP at all, since it is an attack on Bitcoin rather than a
> proposed improvement. There is a debate on the PR whether the
> "technically unsound, ..., or not in keeping with the Bitcoin
> philosophy." or "must represent a net improvement." clauses (BIP 2) are
> relevant. Those issues need to be resolved somehow before it could be
> merged. I have already commented to this effect and given my own
> opinions on the PR, and simply pretending the issues don't exist won't
> make them go away. (Nor is it worth the time of honest people to help
> Casey resolve this just so he can further try to harm/destroy Bitcoin.)
>=20
> Luke
>=20
>=20
> On 10/23/23 13:43, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>=20
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +0000, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> >=20
> > > I have not requested a BIP for OpenTimestamps, even though it is of m=
uch
> > > wider relevance to Bitcoin users than Ordinals by virtue of the fact =
that much
> > > of the commonly used software, including Bitcoin Core, is timestamped=
 with OTS.
> > > I have not, because there is no need to document every single little =
protocol
> > > that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP.
> > >=20
> > > Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things. There is no avoidi=
ng the act
> > > that BIP assignment and acceptance is a mark of approval for a protoc=
ol. Thus
> > > we should limit BIP assignment to the minimum possible: extremely wid=
espread
> > > standards used by the entire Bitcoin community, for the core mission =
of
> > > Bitcoin.
> >=20
> > This would eliminate most wallet-related protocols e.g. BIP69 (sorted
> > keys), ypubs, zpubs, etc. I don't particularly like any of those but if
> > they can't be BIPs then they'd need to find another spec repository
> > where they wouldn't be lost and where updates could be tracked.
> >=20
> > The SLIP repo could serve this purpose, and I think e.g. SLIP39 is not =
a BIP
> > in part because of perceived friction and exclusivity of the BIPs repo.
> > But I'm not thrilled with this situation.
> >=20
> > In fact, I would prefer that OpenTimestamps were a BIP :).
> >=20
> > > It's notable that Lightning is not standardized via the BIP process. =
I think
> > > that's a good thing. While it's arguably of wide enough use to warren=
t BIPs,
> > > Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core maintainers, and using th=
eir
> > > separate BOLT process makes that clear.
> >=20
> > Well, LN is a bit special because it's so big that it can have its own
> > spec repo which is actively maintained and used.
> >=20
> > While it's technically true that BIPs need "approval of Core maintainer=
s"
> > to be merged, the text of BIP2 suggests that this approval should be a
> > functionary role and be pretty-much automatic. And not require the BIP
> > be relevant or interesting or desireable to Core developers.
> >=20
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev