path: root/d7/f9a2b985309128e84963e720cb5f9c5ef19dc5

Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F359BC0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A34706CC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org D5A34706CC
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=0kPMLY6r
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 2u7Wz8sDvdbL
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AE4706C9
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 13AE4706C9
Received: from [192.168.86.103] (99-39-46-195.lightspeed.dybhfl.sbcglobal.net
 [99.39.46.195]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
 by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56D8C38AFC74;
 Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
 t=1698192915; bh=Jl/Us9O0tQWQ0UBvRFJe3apPr+2fBSO6+diGly/8Z+U=;
 h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To;
 b=0kPMLY6rkzseHcBm61uQI1OTfNrnrZGJNuYrVIKfQ0nCeC70oGPTaLEDhWzXGX1x/
 YNb6Z7R3vkivVS0m2S0FMTrgKxdlgu3FaN0Mb5AwdvZ5b0sXbrOP1m8YedxnLgRfbi
 76yC4e1AbA3HkYhDdthSQ20nsieOtt8u8lTu3AEo=
X-Hashcash: 1:23:231025:laolu32@gmail.com::73apE3o1pX81+bAx:elCU
X-Hashcash: 1:23:231025:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::AfRFl4Mqka52hGUU:dLjv
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80"
Message-ID: <f6c909b3-6851-f26d-3b30-a65232c1cc61@dashjr.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:15:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
To: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTaSwtvctmIiF74k@petertodd.org> <ZTawwRqGN4XUUu8C@camus>
 <5b641ddc-a30b-4dd7-2481-6d9cdb459359@dashjr.org>
 <CAO3Pvs_uUtCfhayU=3LCtpNGtkcDr=H0AM65bhNJcTMuBzWn_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAO3Pvs_uUtCfhayU=3LCtpNGtkcDr=H0AM65bhNJcTMuBzWn_w@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: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:21 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Seems like a "solution" looking for a problem which doesn't actually 
exist. And not even a good "solution" for that - might as well not have 
BIP number at all, if they're not going to be usefully assigned. What we 
have now is working fine aside from a few trolls once in a while.

On 10/24/23 18:56, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to assign BIP numbers, so we can
> spend time on more impactful things.
>
> IIUC, one the primary roles of the dedicated BIP maintainers is just 
> to hand
> out BIP numbers for documents. Supposedly with this privilege, the BIP
> maintainer is able to tastefully assign related BIPs to consecutive 
> numbers,
> and also reserve certain BIP number ranges for broad categories, like 3xx
> for p2p changes (just an example).
>
> 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.
>
> 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 hope
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Laolu
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:35 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>     Everything standardized between Bitcoin software is eligible to be
>     and
>     should be a BIP. I completely disagree with the claim that it's
>     used for
>     too many things.
>
>     SLIPs exist for altcoin stuff. They shouldn't be used for things
>     related
>     to Bitcoin.
>
>     BOLTs also shouldn't have ever been a separate process and should
>     really
>     just get merged into BIPs. But at this point, that will probably take
>     quite a bit of effort, and obviously cooperation and active
>     involvement
>     from the Lightning development community.
>
>     Maybe we need a 3rd BIP editor. Both Kalle and myself haven't had
>     time
>     to keep up. There are several PRs far more important than Ordinals
>     nonsense that need to be triaged and probably merged.
>
>     The issue with Ordinals is that it is actually unclear if it's
>     eligible
>     to be a BIP at all, since it is an attack on Bitcoin rather than a
>     proposed improvement. There is a debate on the PR whether the
>     "technically unsound, ..., or not in keeping with the Bitcoin
>     philosophy." or "must represent a net improvement." clauses (BIP
>     2) are
>     relevant. Those issues need to be resolved somehow before it could be
>     merged. I have already commented to this effect and given my own
>     opinions on the PR, and simply pretending the issues don't exist
>     won't
>     make them go away. (Nor is it worth the time of honest people to help
>     Casey resolve this just so he can further try to harm/destroy
>     Bitcoin.)
>
>     Luke
>
>
>     On 10/23/23 13:43, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>     > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +0000, Peter Todd via
>     bitcoin-dev wrote:
>     >> I have _not_ requested a BIP for OpenTimestamps, even though it
>     is of much
>     >> wider relevance to Bitcoin users than Ordinals by virtue of the
>     fact that much
>     >> of the commonly used software, including Bitcoin Core, is
>     timestamped with OTS.
>     >> I have not, because there is no need to document every single
>     little protocol
>     >> that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP.
>     >>
>     >> Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things. There is no
>     avoiding the act
>     >> that BIP assignment and acceptance is a mark of approval for a
>     protocol. Thus
>     >> we should limit BIP assignment to the minimum possible:
>     _extremely_ widespread
>     >> standards used by the _entire_ Bitcoin community, for the core
>     mission of
>     >> Bitcoin.
>     >>
>     > This would eliminate most wallet-related protocols e.g. BIP69
>     (sorted
>     > keys), ypubs, zpubs, etc. I don't particularly like any of those
>     but if
>     > they can't be BIPs then they'd need to find another spec repository
>     > where they wouldn't be lost and where updates could be tracked.
>     >
>     > The SLIP repo could serve this purpose, and I think e.g. SLIP39
>     is not a BIP
>     > in part because of perceived friction and exclusivity of the
>     BIPs repo.
>     > But I'm not thrilled with this situation.
>     >
>     > In fact, I would prefer that OpenTimestamps were a BIP :).
>     >
>     >> It's notable that Lightning is _not_ standardized via the BIP
>     process. I think
>     >> that's a good thing. While it's arguably of wide enough use to
>     warrent BIPs,
>     >> Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core maintainers, and
>     using their
>     >> separate BOLT process makes that clear.
>     >>
>     > Well, LN is a bit special because it's so big that it can have
>     its own
>     > spec repo which is actively maintained and used.
>     >
>     > While it's technically true that BIPs need "approval of Core
>     maintainers"
>     > to be merged, the text of BIP2 suggests that this approval
>     should be a
>     > functionary role and be pretty-much automatic. And not require
>     the BIP
>     > be relevant or interesting or desireable to Core developers.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>     > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>     > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     bitcoin-dev mailing list
>     bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Seems like a "solution" looking for a problem which doesn't
      actually exist. And not even a good "solution" for that - might as
      well not have BIP number at all, if they're not going to be
      usefully assigned. What we have now is working fine aside from a
      few trolls once in a while.<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/24/23 18:56, Olaoluwa Osuntokun
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO3Pvs_uUtCfhayU=3LCtpNGtkcDr=H0AM65bhNJcTMuBzWn_w@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to
          assign BIP numbers, so we can<br>
          spend time on more impactful things.<br>
          <br>
          IIUC, one the primary roles of the dedicated BIP maintainers
          is just to hand<br>
          out BIP numbers for documents. Supposedly with this privilege,
          the BIP<br>
          maintainer is able to tastefully assign related BIPs to
          consecutive numbers,<br>
          and also reserve certain BIP number ranges for broad
          categories, like 3xx<br>
          for p2p changes (just an example).<br>
          <br>
          To my knowledge, the methodology for such BIP number selection
          isn't<br>
          published anywhere, and is mostly arbitrary. As motioned in
          this thread,<br>
          some perceive this manual process as a gatekeeping mechanism,
          and often<br>
          ascribe favoritism as the reason why PR X got a number
          immediately, but PR Y<br>
          has waited N months w/o an answer.<br>
          <br>
          Every few years we go through an episode where someone is
          rightfully upset<br>
          that they haven't been assigned a BIP number after following
          the requisite<br>
          process.  Most recently, another BIP maintainer was appointed,
          with the hope<br>
          that the second maintainer would help to alleviate some of the
          subjective<br>
          load of the position.  Fast forward to this email thread, and
          it doesn't<br>
          seem like adding more BIP maintainers will actually help with
          the issue of<br>
          BIP number assignment.<br>
          <br>
          Instead, what if we just removed the subjective human element
          from the<br>
          process, and switched to using PR numbers to assign BIPs? Now
          instead of<br>
          attempting to track down a BIP maintainer at the end of a
          potentially<br>
          involved review+iteration period, PRs are assigned BIP numbers
          as soon as<br>
          they're opened and we have one less thing to bikeshed and
          gatekeep.<br>
          <br>
          One down side of this is that assuming the policy is adopted,
          we'll sorta<br>
          sky rocket the BIP number space. At the time of writing of
          this email, the<br>
          next PR number looks to be 1508. That doesn't seem like a big
          deal to me,<br>
          but we could offset that by some value, starting at the
          highest currently<br>
          manually assigned BIP number. BIP numbers would no longer
          always be<br>
          contiguous, but that's sort of already the case.<br>
          <br>
          There's also the matter of related BIPs, like the segwit
          series (BIPs 141,<br>
          142, 143, 144, and 145). For these, we can use a suffix scheme
          to indicate<br>
          the BIP lineage. So if BIP 141 was the first PR, then BIP 142
          was opened<br>
          later, the OP can declare the BIP 142 is BIP 141.2 or BIP
          141-2. I don't<br>
          think it would be too difficult to find a workable scheme.<br>
          <br>
          Thoughts?<br>
          <br>
          -- Laolu<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at
            11:35 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a
              href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
              moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;
            wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote">Everything standardized
            between Bitcoin software is eligible to be and <br>
            should be a BIP. I completely disagree with the claim that
            it's used for <br>
            too many things.<br>
            <br>
            SLIPs exist for altcoin stuff. They shouldn't be used for
            things related <br>
            to Bitcoin.<br>
            <br>
            BOLTs also shouldn't have ever been a separate process and
            should really <br>
            just get merged into BIPs. But at this point, that will
            probably take <br>
            quite a bit of effort, and obviously cooperation and active
            involvement <br>
            from the Lightning development community.<br>
            <br>
            Maybe we need a 3rd BIP editor. Both Kalle and myself
            haven't had time <br>
            to keep up. There are several PRs far more important than
            Ordinals <br>
            nonsense that need to be triaged and probably merged.<br>
            <br>
            The issue with Ordinals is that it is actually unclear if
            it's eligible <br>
            to be a BIP at all, since it is an attack on Bitcoin rather
            than a <br>
            proposed improvement. There is a debate on the PR whether
            the <br>
            "technically unsound, ..., or not in keeping with the
            Bitcoin <br>
            philosophy." or "must represent a net improvement." clauses
            (BIP 2) are <br>
            relevant. Those issues need to be resolved somehow before it
            could be <br>
            merged. I have already commented to this effect and given my
            own <br>
            opinions on the PR, and simply pretending the issues don't
            exist won't <br>
            make them go away. (Nor is it worth the time of honest
            people to help <br>
            Casey resolve this just so he can further try to
            harm/destroy Bitcoin.)<br>
            <br>
            Luke<br>
            <br>
            <br>
            On 10/23/23 13:43, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
            &gt; On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +0000, Peter Todd
            via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
            &gt;&gt; I have _not_ requested a BIP for OpenTimestamps,
            even though it is of much<br>
            &gt;&gt; wider relevance to Bitcoin users than Ordinals by
            virtue of the fact that much<br>
            &gt;&gt; of the commonly used software, including Bitcoin
            Core, is timestamped with OTS.<br>
            &gt;&gt; I have not, because there is no need to document
            every single little protocol<br>
            &gt;&gt; that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP.<br>
            &gt;&gt;<br>
            &gt;&gt; Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things.
            There is no avoiding the act<br>
            &gt;&gt; that BIP assignment and acceptance is a mark of
            approval for a protocol. Thus<br>
            &gt;&gt; we should limit BIP assignment to the minimum
            possible: _extremely_ widespread<br>
            &gt;&gt; standards used by the _entire_ Bitcoin community,
            for the core mission of<br>
            &gt;&gt; Bitcoin.<br>
            &gt;&gt;<br>
            &gt; This would eliminate most wallet-related protocols e.g.
            BIP69 (sorted<br>
            &gt; keys), ypubs, zpubs, etc. I don't particularly like any
            of those but if<br>
            &gt; they can't be BIPs then they'd need to find another
            spec repository<br>
            &gt; where they wouldn't be lost and where updates could be
            tracked.<br>
            &gt;<br>
            &gt; The SLIP repo could serve this purpose, and I think
            e.g. SLIP39 is not a BIP<br>
            &gt; in part because of perceived friction and exclusivity
            of the BIPs repo.<br>
            &gt; But I'm not thrilled with this situation.<br>
            &gt;<br>
            &gt; In fact, I would prefer that OpenTimestamps were a BIP
            :).<br>
            &gt;<br>
            &gt;&gt; It's notable that Lightning is _not_ standardized
            via the BIP process. I think<br>
            &gt;&gt; that's a good thing. While it's arguably of wide
            enough use to warrent BIPs,<br>
            &gt;&gt; Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core
            maintainers, and using their<br>
            &gt;&gt; separate BOLT process makes that clear.<br>
            &gt;&gt;<br>
            &gt; Well, LN is a bit special because it's so big that it
            can have its own<br>
            &gt; spec repo which is actively maintained and used.<br>
            &gt;<br>
            &gt; While it's technically true that BIPs need "approval of
            Core maintainers"<br>
            &gt; to be merged, the text of BIP2 suggests that this
            approval should be a<br>
            &gt; functionary role and be pretty-much automatic. And not
            require the BIP<br>
            &gt; be relevant or interesting or desireable to Core
            developers.<br>
            &gt;<br>
            &gt;<br>
            &gt;<br>
            &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
            &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
            &gt; <a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
              class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
            &gt; <a
              href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
              class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
            <a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
              class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
            <a
              href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
              class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>

--------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80--