Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid

[Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>]

I have to say, I agree with Luke here, this was Finalized a long time
ago.  The version that was agreed on can be seen at
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021

Also see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6205.0 and Luke's three
biased polls at 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6206.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6207.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6208.0

Matt

On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 14:40 -0800, Amir Taaki wrote:
> 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).