From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrdli-0005Vk-O7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:02:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.246.101.161; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Rrdlh-0002a2-BJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:02:42 +0000 Received: from [152.23.98.43] (dhcp04615.highsouth-resnet.unc.edu [152.23.98.43]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A7FF3F8 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:54:02 +0100 (CET) From: Matt Corallo To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:02:30 -0500 Message-ID: <1327878150.23803.4.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.4 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1Rrdlh-0002a2-BJ Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:02:42 -0000 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).