Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FC9C0032 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39F383684 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:33:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org A39F383684 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=breen.xyz header.i=@breen.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=sig1 header.b=KvnTTPxu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.499, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PE9JAkZc8DLG for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:33:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 416 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:33:15 UTC DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 3D1C68367C Received: from st43p00im-ztbu10063701.me.com (st43p00im-ztbu10063701.me.com [17.58.63.178]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D1C68367C for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:33:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=breen.xyz; s=sig1; t=1698081977; bh=orwmUEGSa3fIcpAakfhL+bE14E10de11IRIOHDa5OTg=; h=Content-Type:From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:Message-Id:To; b=KvnTTPxuewEHGyQGnSX3ZB+ZE0Z/FnYfraVY4uUS3tI/zkz4aXI6xrbFGzPBj3guw CKW79zI0ce8OKoaagwd4Jl9rHgrk4t7lQuTxA0y68xTPSZHGUEy0goQFOHc8n//pfk ruQsXMFnpUQr52D498T/SDseiDQsXmb7QtOzoC4XPwJnWWCasqe9JSSxwqH64JWxny sitfzB0xSg0Oe7Z/Vhyr8eFb4s1e0D64jC969PssY7PtQmV0mgGuR70q4dEEGQaoM/ 8soqNiz/akqIw4UNK2Z39qXbuWW2lVQoDISVNPnMvdrx5Ovi98JnHlsusrOzzceXlZ 7XlnXAaktnp5g== Received: from smtpclient.apple (st43p00im-dlb-asmtp-mailmevip.me.com [17.42.251.41]) by st43p00im-ztbu10063701.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76560D00354; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-ACABE61C-0C3A-4D11-B18D-648E7D01BC94 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ryan Breen Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:26:06 -0400 Message-Id: <15A90517-83ED-4285-831A-46B8B3C6749A@breen.xyz> References: In-Reply-To: To: =?utf-8?Q?L=C3=A9o_Haf?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21A360) X-Proofpoint-GUID: gEIsSCyLWZVpjxrmpURKdCdUSGR6zxuy X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: gEIsSCyLWZVpjxrmpURKdCdUSGR6zxuy X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: =?UTF-8?Q?vendor=3Dfsecure_engine=3D1.1.170-22c6f66c430a71ce266a39bfe25bc?= =?UTF-8?Q?2903e8d5c8f:6.0.573,18.0.572,17.0.605.474.0000000_definitions?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3D2023-05-17=5F02:2023-05-17=5F02,2020-02-14=5F11,2020-01-23?= =?UTF-8?Q?=5F02_signatures=3D0?= X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1030 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2308100000 definitions=main-2310230152 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:20:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinals BIP PR X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:33:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail-ACABE61C-0C3A-4D11-B18D-648E7D01BC94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Presumably the people using it feel it is an improvement. However you feel a= bout it, Ordinals and Inscriptions are now a part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Whether Ordinals deserve a BIP is yet to be determined, but it doesn=E2=80=99= t seem appropriate to try and force him to retract it. That solves nothing. I= f there is a reason this shouldn=E2=80=99t be a BIP, then that should be lai= d out as part of the process and formally rejected. Otherwise it should go t= hrough the normal process and be accepted. As it is, leaving it in limbo and just hoping that it goes away is not a sol= ution. Thanks, Ryan Breen @ursuscamp > On Oct 23, 2023, at 12:49=E2=80=AFPM, L=C3=A9o Haf via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF > =EF=BB=BF BIPs such as the increase in block size, drives-chains, colored c= oins, etc... were proposals for Bitcoin improvements. On the other hand, you= r BIP brings absolutely no improvement, on the contrary it is a regression, b= ut you already know that. >=20 > I strongly invite you to retract or if the desire continues to push you to= negatively affect the chain, to create OIPs or anything similar, as far as p= ossible from the development of Bitcoin and real BIPs that improve Bitcoin. >=20 > L=C3=A9o Haf.=20 >=20 >>> Le 23 oct. 2023 =C3=A0 10:23, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev a =C3=A9crit : >>>=20 >> =EF=BB=BF >> Dear List, >>=20 >> The Ordinals BIP PR has been sitting open for nine months now[0]. I've co= mmented a few times asking the BIP editors to let me know what is needed for= the BIP to either be merged or rejected. I've also reached out to the BIP e= ditors via DM and email, but haven't received a response. >>=20 >> There has been much misunderstanding of the nature of the BIP process. BI= PS, in particular informational BIPs, are a form of technical documentation,= and their acceptance does not indicate that they will be included in any im= plementation, including Bitcoin Core, nor that they they have consensus amon= g the community. >>=20 >> Preexisting BIPs include hard-fork block size increases, hard-fork proof-= of-work changes, colored coin voting protocols, rejected soft fork proposals= , encouragement of address reuse, and drivechain. >>=20 >> I believe ordinals is in-scope for a BIP, and am hoping to get the PR uns= tuck. I would appreciate feedback from the BIP editors on whether it is in-s= cope for a BIP, if not, why not, and if so, what changes need to be made for= it to be accepted. >>=20 >> Best regards, >> Casey Rodarmor >>=20 >> [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-ACABE61C-0C3A-4D11-B18D-648E7D01BC94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pre= sumably the people using it feel it is an improvement. However you feel abou= t it, Ordinals and Inscriptions are now a part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Whether Ordinals deserve a BIP= is yet to be determined, but it doesn=E2=80=99t seem appropriate to try and= force him to retract it. That solves nothing. If there is a reason this sho= uldn=E2=80=99t be a BIP, then that should be laid out as part of the process= and formally rejected. Otherwise it should go through the normal process an= d be accepted.

As it is, le= aving it in limbo and just hoping that it goes away is not a solution.
=

Thanks,
Ryan Breen
@ursuscamp

On Oct 23, 2023, at 12:49=E2=80= =AFPM, L=C3=A9o Haf via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:

=EF=BB=BF
=EF=BB=BF BIPs such as the increase in blo= ck size, drives-chains, colored coins, etc... were proposals for Bitcoin imp= rovements. On the other hand, your BIP brings absolutely no improvement, on t= he contrary it is a regression, but you already know that.
<= br>
I strongly invite you to retract or if the desire c= ontinues to push you to negatively affect the chain, to create OIPs or anyth= ing similar, as far as possible from the development of Bitcoin and real BIP= s that improve Bitcoin.

L=C3= =A9o Haf. 

Le 23 oct. 2023 =C3=A0 10:23, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev &= lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a =C3=A9crit :

=EF=BB=BF
Dear List,

The Ordinals BIP PR has been sittin= g open for nine months now[0]. I've commented a few times asking the BIP edi= tors to let me know what is needed for the BIP to either be merged or reject= ed. I've also reached out to the BIP editors via DM and email, but haven't r= eceived a response.

There has been much misunderstanding o= f the nature of the BIP process. BIPS, in particular informational BIPs, are= a form of technical documentation, and their acceptance does not indicate t= hat they will be included in any implementation, including Bitcoin Core, nor= that they they have consensus among the community.

Preexisting B= IPs include hard-fork block size increases, hard-fork proof-of-work changes,= colored coin voting protocols, rejected soft fork proposals, encouragement o= f address reuse, and drivechain.

I believe ordinals is in= -scope for a BIP, and am hoping to get the PR unstuck. I would appreciate fe= edback from the BIP editors on whether it is in-scope for a BIP, if not, why= not, and if so, what changes need to be made for it to be accepted.
=
Best regards,
Casey Rodarmor

[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/14= 08
_______________________________________________
bitcoi= n-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /span>
___________________________________= ____________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
= --Apple-Mail-ACABE61C-0C3A-4D11-B18D-648E7D01BC94--