Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:39:04 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="azLHFNyN32YCQGCU"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBg90FxbEy1smp9mn+djF-N6PdUprtQ7r_kgvKCGbTHndQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
Precedence: list


--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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:
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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.

For example, I suspect I wouldn't be able to get a BIP for a decentralized
assassination market protocol standard into the repository, regardless of
whether or not it was used - it's simply too distastful and controversial f=
or
us to want to merge that. Would you call that rejection censorship?

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 elsewh=
ere.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXa8pWAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yO/AH+wUxpvTXtaUj4mj5UI4UTwpG
xRbrCqmuZHp528PdtRemODDZVVpgqHhmbWC9AUc7ef6RMOJ25l5AmegZeLfFaX6U
EX4JpZuoUeuSIX6kkVvhGA/uY9f+oUt6W1v18fVVuunorlZHO7RMJtaKYjebAhZa
McEsnB1sA+uwduUNPdpPTmLgWjAHLdoTjauggZvWktA+47RuKi36RniLlj8JzRXg
k24RUo5CCL7Jeb0yjnPumPTS0dTo2QGsJzCNAKGSixt1MkQ8XVabgbybtqBCyMFB
H6MjYwpLBFRNstHwzHjb6Yt7yHzOwINbYHCPXSDdQVD/teYhG2X1zVHpwwmswd8=
=knTL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU--