From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) 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 To: "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 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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).