Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:10:00 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160623121000.GA20073@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAPg+sBg90FxbEy1smp9mn+djF-N6PdUprtQ7r_kgvKCGbTHndQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAPg+sBiqh80Q4Dfm0y6aEX+gHrcHZMq3tckejx8KDCPb-ikkOg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiqh80Q4Dfm0y6aEX+gHrcHZMq3tckejx8KDCPb-ikkOg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
Precedence: list


--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publicat=
ion
> > platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by
> > accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them.
>=20
> We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that
> repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on
> proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github
> is a historical artifact.

That's simply not how the rest of the community perceives bips, and until we
move them elsewhere that's not going to change.

No matter how much we scream that we don't have authority, the fact of the
matter is the bips are located under the github.com/bitcoin namespace, and =
we
do have editorial control over them.

> > I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in =
the bips
> > repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing el=
sewhere.
>=20
> Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's
> more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there
> community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference
> implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons
> to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a
> BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend
> against its usage.

Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the
question now is what editorial policies should we exert?

My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on
ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't tro=
ll
and call that "advocating censorship"

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXa9GVAAoJEGOZARBE6K+ySJEH+wdpHj+40LwLuYlVsAKJmzfo
DBMBS4DYQeSp5LPk2I7L7NQM7fRUYW7b39LC7CvMBBJMBo5eT07CoqXO0J0CvSns
mZWmWtOTWEAUJchGpzPz1mnF+EQ5nndqfit3VnY4WzlQvoNHT305A5ehAI8LTmN4
8wMZkh/8OAYBqXoZ+hP3E2jHyFAObWfwrUnnV4ixExcWLkNxxXFJNLzM2KVgBL9G
XXs8BQV6NNAioDRIjd+TFOxCh+0QMs9I4xQHk78gdS4IVWsokwOI5zxesygZzANc
T0TcIKYjBX7WbgcKoVF9P3Qs9izNhV6h2FQTCcz/oCqQ1nJWl8gg53SXapbP5T8=
=AGF/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--