From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE8A7898 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:10:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148093.authsmtp.net (outmail148093.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.93]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E161A2 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5NCA3T1008685; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:10:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5NCA1Bf005264 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:10:02 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 283C84011D; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F8EC20217; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:10:00 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Pieter Wuille Message-ID: <20160623121000.GA20073@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 6a1b66c5-393b-11e6-829e-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAEUEkAaAgsB AmAbWldeUV17WWE7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUQAWcm0A dEgeUhxwcQEIeXxw ZUUsWCFaDkJ8JkNg QUdXR3AHZDJmdWgd WRVFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk FAgyOXU9MCtqYAlL TwdFKFUITA4TBDkk QAsPEX0FPHVNSjUv Iho9K1kaBw4NNQ0Y EGNpAQpHa3c8 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:10:06 -0000 --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publicat= ion > > platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by > > accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them. >=20 > We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that > repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on > proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github > is a historical artifact. That's simply not how the rest of the community perceives bips, and until we move them elsewhere that's not going to change. No matter how much we scream that we don't have authority, the fact of the matter is the bips are located under the github.com/bitcoin namespace, and = we do have editorial control over them. > > I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in = the bips > > repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing el= sewhere. >=20 > Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's > more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there > community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference > implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons > to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a > BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend > against its usage. Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the question now is what editorial policies should we exert? My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't tro= ll and call that "advocating censorship" --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXa9GVAAoJEGOZARBE6K+ySJEH+wdpHj+40LwLuYlVsAKJmzfo DBMBS4DYQeSp5LPk2I7L7NQM7fRUYW7b39LC7CvMBBJMBo5eT07CoqXO0J0CvSns mZWmWtOTWEAUJchGpzPz1mnF+EQ5nndqfit3VnY4WzlQvoNHT305A5ehAI8LTmN4 8wMZkh/8OAYBqXoZ+hP3E2jHyFAObWfwrUnnV4ixExcWLkNxxXFJNLzM2KVgBL9G XXs8BQV6NNAioDRIjd+TFOxCh+0QMs9I4xQHk78gdS4IVWsokwOI5zxesygZzANc T0TcIKYjBX7WbgcKoVF9P3Qs9izNhV6h2FQTCcz/oCqQ1nJWl8gg53SXapbP5T8= =AGF/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--