Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
	designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=173.246.101.161;
	envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; 
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:02:30 -0500
Message-ID: <1327878150.23803.4.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
Precedence: list

I have to say, I agree with Luke here, this was Finalized a long time
ago.  The version that was agreed on can be seen at
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021

Also see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6205.0 and Luke's three
biased polls at 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6206.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6207.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6208.0

Matt

On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 14:40 -0800, Amir Taaki wrote:
> 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).