MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGcHOzzde_T3xJwJL2Ehyw7U1FgxEEBJR30VBLdSZMj=W49hSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAGcHOzw88za1m6uJY9MBO2X=3psNk667FyBOHz2XCPO3ABbcRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAGcHOzwec-eoG-uZzXY2pb=VzQ98EvnijvxrcsrFYgKi2HQ_uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56A79C86.1030902@gmail.com>
	<CAGcHOzybd3fgmdZwdMjq36O4-dXUMcdpdV0+jovTSiAtzFdGUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160202170356.GC18604@muck>
	<CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGcHOzyScNoLT=rHY0BMZvCowYG_WyQ8u-xu=4vHE8xWHraAOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Toby Padilla <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment
	Protocol
Precedence: list

--001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki

The editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it
with his new proposed BIP :)

I really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned
the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. There was deep vetting,
lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his personal opinions to
accept the BIP.

That being said...

The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no idea
if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally
understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when people
who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against
you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very
centralized and discouraging.

I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP
commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing list
and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the
> > > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust
> value,
> > > it makes no sense to object to it.
> >
> > I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard
> > requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP
> > document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby
> > wallet vendors to implement it.
> >
> > While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature
> > itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression
> > that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.
>
> I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about
> this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself,
> in the hope you take the concerns into account.
>
> These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a
> BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally
> dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.
>
> Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement
> it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.
>
> --
> Pieter
>

--001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">My BIP was ultimately accepted, it&#39;s number 74<div><br=
></div><div><a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074=
.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/b=
ip-0074.mediawiki</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>The editor did not agree=
 with it, and I suspect would comment against it with his new proposed BIP =
:)</div><div><br></div><div>I really appreciated that despite his vehement =
disagreement, he assigned the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. =
There was deep vetting, lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his=
 personal opinions to accept the BIP.</div><div><br></div><div>That being s=
aid...</div><div><br></div><div>The mailing list is a problem. I&#39;m stil=
l on moderation only. I have no idea if this message will go through and wh=
en it will go through. I totally understand the desire to keep the conversa=
tion level high, but when people who *are* whitelisted can quickly post mul=
tiple heated arguments against you (publicly) and you can&#39;t respond, th=
en that starts to look very centralized and discouraging.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP=
 commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing lis=
t and wiki doesn&#39;t seem like a good idea.</div></div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pie=
ter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com"=
 target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr">On Feb 2, 2016 18:0=
4, &quot;Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev=
 wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; I really don&#39;t like the idea of policing other people&#39;s u=
se of the<br>
&gt; &gt; protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than du=
st value,<br>
&gt; &gt; it makes no sense to object to it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;ll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard<br=
>
&gt; requirement for deployment. I&#39;d encourage you to go write up your =
BIP<br>
&gt; document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobb=
y<br>
&gt; wallet vendors to implement it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; While I&#39;ll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the f=
eature<br>
&gt; itself is a good idea, I really don&#39;t want people to get the impre=
ssion<br>
&gt; that we&#39;re gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.</p>
</span><p dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;ll go further: whatever people have commented h=
ere and elsewhere about this feature (myself included) are personal opinion=
s on the feature itself, in the hope you take the concerns into account.</p=
>
<p dir=3D"ltr">These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be=
 accepted as a BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even i=
f he personally dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.<=
/p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets hav=
e to implement it. That&#39;s up to the individual wallet authors/maintaine=
rs.</p><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf--