Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:05:46 +0000
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <JrzK-LiMl1adxad-gJWpFNCIXg924YG9cqsginHU2zCgTeCEhvhExnL_E1_PdW8kZGnW-_-CEuS-tNWY0dHUi-lfBucjpLQknqtZUuA7MrA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZTrkJrqzBB0e9dXB@petertodd.org>
References: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTaSwtvctmIiF74k@petertodd.org> <ZTawwRqGN4XUUu8C@camus>
 <5b641ddc-a30b-4dd7-2481-6d9cdb459359@dashjr.org>
 <CAO3Pvs_uUtCfhayU=3LCtpNGtkcDr=H0AM65bhNJcTMuBzWn_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTrkJrqzBB0e9dXB@petertodd.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 Peter,

> At that point, why are we bothering with numbers at all? If BIP #'s aren'=
t
memorable, what is their purpose? Why not just let people publish ideas on
their own web pages and figure out what we're going to call those ideas on =
a
case-by-case basis.

I agree people can maintain BIPs in their own repositories. I will list all=
 the=20
BIPs that are not maintained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository =
on=20
https://bips.wiki

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Friday, October 27th, 2023 at 3:41 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 03:56:55PM -0700, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-=
dev wrote:
>=20
> > TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to assign BIP numbers, so we =
can
> > spend time on more impactful things.
>=20
>=20
> Yes, an easy way to do that is to use a mathematical function, like SHA25=
6(<bip contents>)
>=20
> or Pubkey(<bip author controlled secret key>).
>=20
>=20
> Of course, that's also silly, as we might as well use URLs at that point.=
..
>=20
> > IIUC, one the primary roles of the dedicated BIP maintainers is just to=
 hand
> > out BIP numbers for documents. Supposedly with this privilege, the BIP
> > maintainer is able to tastefully assign related BIPs to consecutive num=
bers,
> > and also reserve certain BIP number ranges for broad categories, like 3=
xx
> > for p2p changes (just an example).
> >=20
> > To my knowledge, the methodology for such BIP number selection isn't
> > published anywhere, and is mostly arbitrary. As motioned in this thread=
,
> > some perceive this manual process as a gatekeeping mechanism, and often
> > ascribe favoritism as the reason why PR X got a number immediately, but=
 PR Y
> > has waited N months w/o an answer.
> >=20
> > Every few years we go through an episode where someone is rightfully up=
set
> > that they haven't been assigned a BIP number after following the requis=
ite
> > process. Most recently, another BIP maintainer was appointed, with the =
hope
> > that the second maintainer would help to alleviate some of the subjecti=
ve
> > load of the position. Fast forward to this email thread, and it doesn't
> > seem like adding more BIP maintainers will actually help with the issue=
 of
> > BIP number assignment.
> >=20
> > Instead, what if we just removed the subjective human element from the
> > process, and switched to using PR numbers to assign BIPs? Now instead o=
f
> > attempting to track down a BIP maintainer at the end of a potentially
> > involved review+iteration period, PRs are assigned BIP numbers as soon =
as
> > they're opened and we have one less thing to bikeshed and gatekeep.
> >=20
> > One down side of this is that assuming the policy is adopted, we'll sor=
ta
> > sky rocket the BIP number space. At the time of writing of this email, =
the
> > next PR number looks to be 1508. That doesn't seem like a big deal to m=
e,
> > but we could offset that by some value, starting at the highest current=
ly
> > manually assigned BIP number. BIP numbers would no longer always be
> > contiguous, but that's sort of already the case.
> >=20
> > There's also the matter of related BIPs, like the segwit series (BIPs 1=
41,
> > 142, 143, 144, and 145). For these, we can use a suffix scheme to indic=
ate
> > the BIP lineage. So if BIP 141 was the first PR, then BIP 142 was opene=
d
> > later, the OP can declare the BIP 142 is BIP 141.2 or BIP 141-2. I don'=
t
> > think it would be too difficult to find a workable scheme.
>=20
>=20
> At that point, why are we bothering with numbers at all? If BIP #'s aren'=
t
> memorable, what is their purpose? Why not just let people publish ideas o=
n
> their own web pages and figure out what we're going to call those ideas o=
n a
> case-by-case basis.
>=20
> All this gets back to my original point: a functioning BIP system is
> inherently centralized and involves human gatekeepers who inevitably have=
 to
> apply standards to approve BIPs. You can't avoid this as long as you want=
 a BIP
> system.
>=20
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev