Return-Path: <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DDEC0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5BD416E6
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:47 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1B5BD416E6
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mail.wpsoftware.net
 header.i=@mail.wpsoftware.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default
 header.b=D4dyU23M
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id t8Qlxdv54pIb
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.wpsoftware.net (unknown [66.183.0.205])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2DE400CB
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:46 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 3A2DE400CB
Received: from camus (camus-andrew.lan [192.168.0.190])
 by mail.wpsoftware.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5E2E40147;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:45 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.wpsoftware.net;
 s=default; t=1698068745;
 bh=O8mu9h5djBpQUQDkhzCCUSYFqPhe2ghYjrU85uN1BZs=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=D4dyU23MGKTR1xpDh0WclraGR8d7RpwqGS5YGEgZRpD5/p+yDD55D5RhSlgYp2so/
 yoIsYOMtaVPnb5C4bXv7J+1pdNUo9D8Nz4V1R7pADPz1qkGgU0vzGaQav87/yaFIW0
 P5xFsXIXiJMBtDV8xf6Ex/WWmZtnQLh/uNoILpdDrHDf70DrFTht/SMdNIg4Dh1459
 vWvpVopb0ZH/D6D8hvy1Ad7iU5qKkL/y8+AiRBey1Y2hrRt0gY1Lyxn+Edq/JjkSkF
 ALnZWnS09z5MkeLUTU8Wxwe0FxDQ/haH+LBtL9P26X1XiJLYh2gm0d6YWqBjZqMMfd
 pFl08aOUfPVMw==
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:44 +0000
From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: Casey Rodarmor <casey@rodarmor.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <ZTZ5CGtBB9+zFbtY@camus>
References: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jJTXAGamV7RWZ6Fl"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:47 -0000


--jJTXAGamV7RWZ6Fl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:38:01PM -0700, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
>
> <snip>
>=20
> There has been much misunderstanding of the nature of the BIP process.
> BIPS, in particular informational BIPs, are a form of technical
> documentation, and their acceptance does not indicate that they will be
> included in any implementation, including Bitcoin Core, nor that they they
> have consensus among 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.
>
> <snip>
>

I agree and I think it sets a bad precedent to be evaluating BIPs based
on the merits of their implementation (vs their specification) or their
consequences for the network. Actual consensus is much bigger than the
BIPs repo, so this accomplishes little beyond making the BIPs repo itself
hard to interact with.

In the worst case it may cause people to interpret BIP numbers as
indicating that proposals are "blessed" by some particular influential
set of people, which can only cause problems.

--=20
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
    -Justin Lewis-Webster


--jJTXAGamV7RWZ6Fl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEkPnKPD7Je+ki35VexYjWPOQbl8EFAmU2eQgACgkQxYjWPOQb
l8EmtQf/YVD753tsk/rtIJ9ycgWgobtYoPVMiPScCwTWSOgFKWVOfQMEp5vVu2WH
ky6sYV0AoIPGpiIPPMjfCH6C0+Gm5WLPK/DmQPDMJFvInqwwzlhVjG/yyIlLffKB
SLrhidCUOwRpem886neYNV4HnxHxFAtAlLML4yZpttSLAYLkNDLa2WN2qCL1uGTI
tuytruFNjA0Da030hhpBwTjbd0Tyjp6n5nsdcEdKfZWy057fTkXJGVPfggKfnuEm
D+hi1vpNkHdVH7/baCdisPmN4wzwzZyCbYp3/0ov8JFtsTm8kEFX0U6XhnQ6TG4V
ZDsioQF31CyoKkX8y2KhICNBj/RZrg==
=7oeG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jJTXAGamV7RWZ6Fl--