Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:35:30 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Casey Rodarmor <casey@rodarmor.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <ZTaSwtvctmIiF74k@petertodd.org>
References: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="y7B4wTehDKwCtzj8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinals BIP PR
Precedence: list


--y7B4wTehDKwCtzj8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:38:01PM -0700, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> Dear List,
>=20
> The Ordinals BIP PR has been sitting open for nine months now[0]. I've
> commented a few times asking the BIP editors to let me know what is needed
> for the BIP to either be merged or rejected. I've also reached out to the
> BIP editors via DM and email, but haven't received a response.
>=20
> There has been much misunderstanding of the nature of the BIP process.
> BIPS, in particular informational BIPs, are a form of technical
> documentation, and their acceptance does not indicate that they will be
> included in any implementation, including Bitcoin Core, nor that they they
> have consensus among the community.
>=20
> Preexisting BIPs include hard-fork block size increases, hard-fork
> proof-of-work changes, colored coin voting protocols, rejected soft fork
> proposals, encouragement of address reuse, and drivechain.

I have _not_ requested a BIP for OpenTimestamps, even though it is of much
wider relevance to Bitcoin users than Ordinals by virtue of the fact that m=
uch
of the commonly used software, including Bitcoin Core, is timestamped with =
OTS.
I have not, because there is no need to document every single little protoc=
ol
that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP.

Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things. There is no avoiding the=
 act
that BIP assignment and acceptance is a mark of approval for a protocol. Th=
us
we should limit BIP assignment to the minimum possible: _extremely_ widespr=
ead
standards used by the _entire_ Bitcoin community, for the core mission of
Bitcoin.

It's notable that Lightning is _not_ standardized via the BIP process. I th=
ink
that's a good thing. While it's arguably of wide enough use to warrent BIPs,
Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core maintainers, and using their
separate BOLT process makes that clear.

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

--y7B4wTehDKwCtzj8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=8SMb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--y7B4wTehDKwCtzj8--