1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <zgenjix@yahoo.com>) id 1RrdQ5-00042L-DH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:40:21 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from nm27.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.90.90])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RrdQ4-0006nE-CE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:40:21 +0000
Received: from [98.138.90.49] by nm27.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
29 Jan 2012 22:40:14 -0000
Received: from [98.138.89.161] by tm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
29 Jan 2012 22:40:14 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
29 Jan 2012 22:40:14 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 544850.36273.bm@omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 86625 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jan 2012 22:40:14 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: MgL3HbwVM1lPH4PofchU7vt0vJfdSYiYBloKpVLPmEws0fS
5cAJZ2HI2Vr0AqGtP.Il_sM3p0TBvk1GJ.aplozmQIB.cz2r3KMPOH.6nnka
RuJq338H56DWbIddSKq8bsrChjtoiVyAsUYQmxPtVTdfig_bArqWWA.DgeC.
pCOV_MbSt4iWSU2zCpU2jD2c0Q1u7FqP6x7uCXH06es2_xZXDEGb2TcbOqC9
LSKrYuvzhYrkAOSE_fFMBVa3cGvYrUYy0ygEx5d.HR1wkqSaxn79.PS6pmC1
aff2ICKHE97IEu9MHEkfmhVxotX7T3ygl2fbBthJD9osTCzclwWoWKWJ0Hwp
YzJF1UZUv0Rkv3CTPYf9ik_2qB6fzTvaIRlQlRqejflLi0Zrb40VQxxePJBQ
dpfhqr3iepJT8UBwLkU_h9L9AyKRRCoiRHTEAghhSf0n5NLW8rVXbx15rvvG
Y4OynrLkPbOwvY0U4gRGhu44wAyBOg8OUtPtsILxA5Q--
Received: from [92.20.138.208] by web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:14 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.116.331537
Message-ID: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(zgenjix[at]yahoo.com)
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [98.138.90.90 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RrdQ4-0006nE-CE
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:40:21 -0000
Hi all,
Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago (before the BIP process existed).
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals
I respectfully disagree. I find it nonsensical to have a BIP to have been accepted before the BIP process existed. My feeling is that a BIP needs to go through the proper formalised motions in public before becoming accepted.
The URI Scheme did not go through these motions. I did not know it was even accepted, and at least 2 implementations have objected to the standard as is. This is problematic because a standard is meant to be consensus building not enforcement from above.
Ergo I am going to say:
NO BIP EXISTED BEFORE THE BIP PROCESS.
NEW BIPS ARE ALWAYS DRAFT STATUS.
BIPS CHANGE STATUS AS SPECIFIED IN BIP 0001
Luke claims I do not have the ability to specify those conditions above.
If there are any objections then please tell me. I did not get to observe the process for BIP 20, therefore I am not accepting it. Anybody is welcome to submit a competing BIP to Luke's BIP 20 (as has happened with BIP 16 and 17).
|
