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 46D1C950 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:16:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EF4D11D for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id f6so94063007lfg.0 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:16:50 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=soyHUAoEBsVhkxp2TynacdfP9D1aX80EU5ImLOoIerc=; b=0oK4uFmrppHz6B1BFfQUDnJYwF4gs0TX5GE4prANPBKFnTtetA/fT5wxIPdMf6Ux2r 8z0+KyI+1TzRHcG7BsGva31js3DkNVQBb1DK9zmjbRefjA4givoTXEtG03I2kR6RjHbn N8+q7taLOvqn9Wp8WHO+Y7oJiFKSnl9JcsITkTTZPz701neMD/g/TOS3FxvU7/lCazlD gpf7yIZ4K89uSkwMtBQVYpc6A14rfllN3ffrEH8/kojt14FBgMk3Xqu65qm/NUwh2m0o 31Z9jPiD2RDnH7nMqnjVrHLy9xGFKlpEcjni00b7qZ+rpF8jymQRsFzIMVEoTUsU01OW 9UVQ== 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; bh=soyHUAoEBsVhkxp2TynacdfP9D1aX80EU5ImLOoIerc=; b=aCe9OMLqS0Bm1+GWbNlBKsH8WA2KSy+OQjSp+6fXBS+XA9YEzb7xXv2T4gTO+6Fggm QvrPY3M1bwxK0LCJj5zC4/P6cYKYwrNMSWOpTfyA1YFlxs5kHLYXNimf0tRCo/Vl93FT APREvoFwELUkPMwhCAjP921Y/k9VzuZwTPzo4N4qsyqOcFJfi7xOwvToRmr7NCCt9Lq+ 3aDWVQy4iapOGAQoycOHlSyT+2eBJBXGCuhbw2Jwze/TwhQLVcrKsv2k+/lsmzTLQV/p h2ZAds/sWqn8UdZCrAcUBs2CsZA+MEWxmQLREqAaHMCR7YDmexjDeS++7CkQihRhNK7u GBvw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLhyhY/ZucLQZi/+oIOZNrEsCqxRCKjJfngyDA3doJlpmcB/FcDDC/BEpAB6Cd0AXrWbMFVkupW+anKlQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.26.194 with SMTP id a185mr9398053lfa.156.1466684208554; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.180.101 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.180.101 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160623121000.GA20073@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623121000.GA20073@fedora-21-dvm> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:16:48 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11403bd83faf290535f107c7 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 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 12:16:51 -0000 --001a11403bd83faf290535f107c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" wrote: > Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the > question now is what editorial policies should we exert? 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" I think that you are free to express dislike of BIP75. Suggesting to remove it for that reason is utterly ridiculous to me, whatever you want to call it. -- Pieter --001a11403bd83faf290535f107c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree o= f editorial control; the
> question now is what editorial policies should we exert?

No, I do not. I am saying that some degree of editorial cont= rol will inevitably exist, simply because there is some human making the ch= oice of assigning a BIP number and merging. My opinion is that we should tr= y to restrict that editorial control to only be subject to objective proces= s, and not be dependent on personal opinions.

> My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we sho= uld do on
> ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don&= #39;t troll
> and call that "advocating censorship"

I think that you are free to express dislike of BIP75. Sugge= sting to remove it for that reason is utterly ridiculous to me, whatever yo= u want to call it.

--
Pieter

--001a11403bd83faf290535f107c7--