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 AAA1AE6E for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:28:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 873EE19E for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e185so102108043vkb.1 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:27:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gTG0IFYZr+3TFN8mWTVgvtJcj5NQ0YmDic/uJLuYkcU=; b=y6EhSCsTR/Z3Sbt+FEA/S2ih+66WcHVHIEv3duJ6wu1BSzWY1ebfCsuoMXGDsZ/1Ms WGyNhIOpEEAniHBiMNbnUAZ3xLpjnq4kPY/KJS9ozXNdAXoQ8yL9Cig47pbSK+/GrzmR Uzb0FI6h9uzTiHZQyk4LLrTlDuRJFN5FdaakL3PUrdoqJ8xyCNAomGaCUAoi9CTj0fgx DfAfcI9HJ0vTJ8bHKurvYdso682nbhuk1sWNYtyWuoiXc1C00oHvX9+DDuQTII/NMVF0 LabGE1ik1MnUb++f5y8dH+WyEO4ZzLpacs2KaRSrviVf9pOQiFrVBz14Pz6dpSvHd1Iu fADQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gTG0IFYZr+3TFN8mWTVgvtJcj5NQ0YmDic/uJLuYkcU=; b=B8FDNSiKX9qSIocGRXvXCd6JK9Ud+gMSxPkEpS8DoB16sNGCrFeERaIWCvBUCs8yrw vp0JOtgrHVMTdsc01LAI6bNx+uItCk1UuZxymBdbwAGUAozbId3CAnYY5DgcvWSoeB6z Z33vDr60HNs9D2YMasRYg/iU285h/CR0oMgEVMQtyyHprmSNbP/ZL7CHhqRL+rISxVYe 4PYl+KiF+aJ9NI5D5RC04fV2u49x2KXa7hkykEm43EFfM4iU1elb8Ca7Uo44pDdrblyp bcDLy03m5xP+zuV3xtpFuO1y9zJJTZK/+PGFxFpCUJL3IqmZV9PqXVGjnL4guIiOeuY8 lXfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSkGylDpvbBddA7rS3tl0NpEEemmyhZpVZw5AL8mZ300ei5qqfVTYf+KPX94/o+UKg6txMeYSmrZM3EqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.9.72 with SMTP id 69mr18648360vkj.126.1454434078591; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.96.210 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org> <201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org> <56A79C86.1030902@gmail.com> <20160202170356.GC18604@muck> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: Toby Padilla To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:29:03 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:28:00 -0000 --001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki The editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it with his new proposed BIP :) I really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. There was deep vetting, lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his personal opinions to accept the BIP. That being said... The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no idea if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when people who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very centralized and discouraging. I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing list and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea. On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the > > > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust > value, > > > it makes no sense to object to it. > > > > I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard > > requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP > > document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby > > wallet vendors to implement it. > > > > While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature > > itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression > > that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin. > > I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about > this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself, > in the hope you take the concerns into account. > > These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a > BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally > dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied. > > Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement > it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers. > > -- > Pieter > --001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74

The editor did not agree= with it, and I suspect would comment against it with his new proposed BIP = :)

I really appreciated that despite his vehement = disagreement, he assigned the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. = There was deep vetting, lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his= personal opinions to accept the BIP.

That being s= aid...

The mailing list is a problem. I'm stil= l on moderation only. I have no idea if this message will go through and wh= en it will go through. I totally understand the desire to keep the conversa= tion level high, but when people who *are* whitelisted can quickly post mul= tiple heated arguments against you (publicly) and you can't respond, th= en that starts to look very centralized and discouraging.

I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP= commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing lis= t and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pie= ter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 2, 2016 18:0= 4, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= tion.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev= wrote:
> > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's u= se of the
> > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than du= st value,
> > it makes no sense to object to it.
>
> I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard > requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your = BIP
> document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobb= y
> wallet vendors to implement it.
>
> While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the f= eature
> itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impre= ssion
> that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.

I'll go further: whatever people have commented h= ere and elsewhere about this feature (myself included) are personal opinion= s on the feature itself, in the hope you take the concerns into account.

These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be= accepted as a BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even i= f he personally dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.<= /p>

Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets hav= e to implement it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintaine= rs.

--
Pieter


--001a11440dfa9a93ad052accd2cf--