Message-ID: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>

Hi all,

Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago (before the BIP process existed).

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals


I respectfully disagree. I find it nonsensical to have a BIP to have been accepted before the BIP process existed. My feeling is that a BIP needs to go through the proper formalised motions in public before becoming accepted.

The URI Scheme did not go through these motions. I did not know it was even accepted, and at least 2 implementations have objected to the standard as is. This is problematic because a standard is meant to be consensus building not enforcement from above.

Ergo I am going to say:

NO BIP EXISTED BEFORE THE BIP PROCESS.

NEW BIPS ARE ALWAYS DRAFT STATUS.

BIPS CHANGE STATUS AS SPECIFIED IN BIP 0001

Luke claims I do not have the ability to specify those conditions above.

If there are any objections then please tell me. I did not get to observe the process for BIP 20, therefore I am not accepting it. Anybody is welcome to submit a competing BIP to Luke's BIP 20 (as has happened with BIP 16 and 17).