Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4363B941 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:01:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 826EF19F for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id q132so94038769lfe.3 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:01:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XYSNFOMP1SCJ+NQZFZVhK+HjqTnnXcbdm9nhEY3AEU0=; b=xsh3Q4/BpMLMRwWYc4n1LGDSc/SwLrLY/F+aJ7EYGgdtxCX8rEDudzxjky6Nvwsbm5 qCtbMBZlToTHTY0cGSLboR05NxgwHGWw9Z5QkGm82xwqitkIKeIc3sNkJE7jkjB/9srE 7RstK0VnrEJ2lHJojmfBCBHH6ORwBmQUGerZMnTmP2bpp2uCFYr+y+y7of6Aj3Vy9Gpp vDq2N+TgISWI/Q95j/C9MfjO0gibtoGjALP5ohtRU6Y+J7umPf+wWk3CeFxWWiKlzO1Z f05ZHPINSVlIP+389xAHVSrLEuBgmTxpMqLEdZJaeWVGDpIEe+aWCNu3w5Ez3EfuaC3Z 0B3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XYSNFOMP1SCJ+NQZFZVhK+HjqTnnXcbdm9nhEY3AEU0=; b=ZFVMAntaoxJgqyAQwZJffh763FZoFurkCA6uyJNgEtcF33+QqfRjL31LzorF0kTxXq NawZAGS97UZI0gFqkZlDYkcRl8uak+4qmAZBVDbxZ60Gs821bIdbvi6nJV8ddaS22Gv4 cSiL3z5TxY+pB4k6QJu12jWO5bgTI/tYtwrHxBRqSRNDGvOTyKtwoGDj23a1RmExdVsb atu81zDQKwrLN8sbWGbL7qCOjp+bdLFlj2lwOiflWNCJ4zOOOCvyglm19NbVPN6zXme8 iJfOe5KFRjqI79EuIAvSdNHbpvQdL0GjEvY9Mfyf2iwdaROSAqVrQR73rL1tmrQ4P9ih vRbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKRE6oiJfjlCKxx2UA5p0bPJKYM6OL7MuSWo8tUSOc2y7X4WS3y/BdDBSrjp42gCr4vyEmCkW4cjndjwQ== X-Received: by 10.46.5.15 with SMTP id 15mr10959663ljf.10.1466683271579; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:01:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.180.101 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:01:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm> From: Pieter Wuille Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:01:10 +0200 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:01:14 -0000 On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: >> On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips >> repository, >> > and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin >> developers >> > to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for >> Tor to >> > add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor >> tactical >> > wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it. >> >> I hope you're not seriously suggesting to censor a BIP because you feel it >> is a bad idea. > > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication > platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by > accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them. We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github is a historical artifact. > I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips > repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere. Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend against its usage. -- Pieter