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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1Rrdli-0005Vk-O7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:02:42 +0000
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;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Rrdlh-0002a2-BJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:02:42 +0000
Received: from [152.23.98.43] (dhcp04615.highsouth-resnet.unc.edu
[152.23.98.43])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A7FF3F8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:54:02 +0100 (CET)
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
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.4 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Rrdlh-0002a2-BJ
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 23:02:42 -0000
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).
|
