1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1RrdaJ-00009V-Co
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:50:55 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RrdaI-00071X-C8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:50:55 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net
[184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBF58560707;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:50:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:50:40 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583
X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583
X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201291750.43042.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1RrdaI-00071X-C8
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:50:55 -0000
First and foremost, I consider this thread an utter waste of time. These
matters were "finished" over a year ago, and there is no need to dig them up
again just because there are numbers for BIPs now. I don't intend to continue
this topic any further than necessary, since my time (and everyone else's) is
better spent working on *actual forward progress*, not this attempt to rewrite
history. That being said...
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:40:14 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
> Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago
> (before the BIP process existed).
Before the BIP process was formalized. The process itself existed long before.
> 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.
It did. In early 2011, there was a consensus and multiple implementations (by
name, I know of at least Spesmilo and WalletBuddy). This is by definition the
Final status. It was not until months later that anyone objected to the
standard.
> Ergo I am going to say:
>
> NO BIP EXISTED BEFORE THE BIP PROCESS.
You are contradicting the assignment of BIP 0020 to a preexisting standard
here.
> NEW BIPS ARE ALWAYS DRAFT STATUS.
>
> BIPS CHANGE STATUS AS SPECIFIED IN BIP 0001
By trying to demote BIP 0020 from Final to Draft, you are not following the
specification in BIP 0001.
> Luke claims I do not have the ability to specify those conditions above.
Rather, I am claiming that assigning a number does not give you the authority
to demote a preexisting standard. No other standards organization has
attempted to claim preexisting standards don't exist or change their status.
> 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).
Anyone is welcome to submit a new BIP aimed at Superceding BIP 20 (and doing
so might make good sense soon, with various new functionality), but until that
occurs, BIP 20 remains the Final status it has been for a whole year now.
|
