Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Alexander F. Moser" <am@alexmoser.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:39:44 +0200
Message-Id: <15AD6E27-D6C7-4848-B961-A313BBFFB396@alexmoser.com>
References: <ZTrkJrqzBB0e9dXB@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZTrkJrqzBB0e9dXB@petertodd.org>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinals BIP PR
Precedence: list

A mostly self-managed scheme without exploding number spaces and half-decent=
 quality control:

New ideas and proposals-in-development are in a draft/discussion state witho=
ut any assigned or reserved BIP ordinal and remain as such until the followi=
ng three conditions are true:

1 - author(s) consider the proposal final and want to promote it to a BIP.
Purpose: quality ensured by reputation=20
Risk: Expectations, Experience, Ego

2 - enough non-author interactions with the draft exist. This can be platfor=
m agnostic, with =E2=80=9Einteractions=E2=80=9C meaning comments, non-author=
 contributors, likes, stars, threads,.. and =E2=80=9Eenough=E2=80=9C meaning=
 flat thresholds, a function of various factors, a combination of the two or=
 nothing specific at all.=20
Purpose: quality ensured by many=20
Risk: heated discussions on stupid topics and spam inflate interactions=20

3 - no other drafts exist that fulfill condition 1 and 2 and seek the ordina=
l =E2=80=9ElastBIP#+1=E2=80=9C.=20
Purpose: avoiding coincidental concurrency issues and fights over esoteric n=
umbers.=20
Risk: resolutions may need moderation and can be tedious=20

Draft promotions are done in batches at e.g. every quadruple-zero ending blo=
ck number (xx0000) - a bit more often than once a quarter or more often at e=
.g every 2016 blocks (~2w) at difficulty adjustment.=20


Fairly straightforward and simple methodology, but should still provide - in=
 an ideal world - enough framework for proposers to self manage fully. In re=
alistic worlds, we can use BIP maintainers to moderate and protect the proce=
ss.=20

Condition 2 =E2=80=9EInteractions=E2=80=9C could be changed to =E2=80=9EEnou=
gh non-authors consider proposal final=E2=80=9C to ensure more quality by en=
ticing co-responsibility, but it=E2=80=99d need a new approval process, whic=
h is more annoying than soft-defining required levels of community engagemen=
t and relying on the authors for common sense.=20

Best,
A


On 27.10.2023, at 00:12, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org> wrote:

=EF=BB=BFOn Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 03:56:55PM -0700, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bi=
tcoin-dev wrote:
> TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to assign BIP numbers, so we can=

> spend time on more impactful things.

Yes, an easy way to do that is to use a mathematical function, like SHA256(<=
bip contents>)
or Pubkey(<bip author controlled secret key>).

Of course, that's also silly, as we might as well use URLs at that point...

> IIUC, one the primary roles of the dedicated BIP maintainers is just to ha=
nd
> out BIP numbers for documents. Supposedly with this privilege, the BIP
> maintainer is able to tastefully assign related BIPs to consecutive number=
s,
> and also reserve certain BIP number ranges for broad categories, like 3xx
> 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 upset=

> that they haven't been assigned a BIP number after following the requisite=

> process.  Most recently, another BIP maintainer was appointed, with the ho=
pe
> that the second maintainer would help to alleviate some of the subjective
> 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 of
> 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 sorta
> 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 me,
> but we could offset that by some value, starting at the highest currently
> 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 141,=

> 142, 143, 144, and 145). For these, we can use a suffix scheme to indicate=

> the BIP lineage. So if BIP 141 was the first PR, then BIP 142 was opened
> 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.

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.

All this gets back to my original point: a functioning BIP system is
*inherently* centralized and involves human gatekeepers who inevitably have t=
o
apply standards to approve BIPs. You can't avoid this as long as you want a B=
IP
system.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev