MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAPg+sBg90FxbEy1smp9mn+djF-N6PdUprtQ7r_kgvKCGbTHndQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:01:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiqh80Q4Dfm0y6aEX+gHrcHZMq3tckejx8KDCPb-ikkOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> 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