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 67C8392 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:43:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.148.109]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07CE179 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247]) by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5NChAQ3059085; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:43:10 +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 u5NCh5Mc043295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:43:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41E9540110; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 67FCC20217; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:43:04 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Pieter Wuille Message-ID: <20160623124304.GA20280@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623121000.GA20073@fedora-21-dvm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 08c91bf2-3940-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAEUEkAaAgsB AmAbWldeVF57WWU7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUQAWckQE e00eVhpwfgAIeX5x ZkcsXngIVUUoI0Rg QUdQFXAHZDJmdTJM BBVFdwNVdQJNeEwU a1l3GhFYa3VsNCMk FAgyOXU9MCtqYAlL TwdFKFUITA4TBDkk QAsPEX0FPHVNSjUv Iho9K1kaBw4NNQ0Y EGNpAQpHa3c8 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706 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 12:43:13 -0000 --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:16:48PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" wrote: >=20 > > Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; > the > > question now is what editorial policies should we exert? >=20 > No, I do not. I am saying that some degree of editorial control will > inevitably exist, simply because there is some human making the choice of > assigning a BIP number and merging. My opinion is that we should try to > restrict that editorial control to only be subject to objective process, > and not be dependent on personal opinions. > > > My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on > > ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't > troll > > and call that "advocating censorship" >=20 > I think that you are free to express dislike of BIP75. Suggesting to remo= ve > it for that reason is utterly ridiculous to me, whatever you want to call > it. In the future we're likely to see a lot of BIPs around AML/KYC support, e.g. adding personal identity information to transactions, blacklist standards, = etc. Should we accept those BIPs into the bips repo? --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXa9lVAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yb9oH/iHf9I6IGVxT53QxXsMUHpBA 74bZhAxplMwbQ1jwBFqDfXjXJD4x6FcpHzKSiW+JV0fbICTCbTgoIs6zGb5MQRlH lK1jWLctctjCEfb4QF2H8L7NP4+ihBLx3FuCPztYYkPthgzlM6SFU8peKHP+DLqk kMup97wJPVxd/RXi0WVgKxOWco3quQVPdhZgfNbGW0uG9qWjgQ6iTxymYGsUTeOI hrDbu9WtM7HmhmphIMtQjPyUpkciNFFKO6dgGxzbHtgPgvFOvdHDZHcWG+ONlW4K A/r2naPl2iz/nNP3ontMsjkeD6GLAaS+qRVbpgwBffB7NbeyZZwQYRliTfiTJ2c= =S/uQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--