From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1B0C0032 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6695A4F25E for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:06:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 6695A4F25E Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=ot7K62C3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G9WgFM4BBlKF for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-0201.mail-europe.com (mail-0201.mail-europe.com [51.77.79.158]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60BD04F258 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:06:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 60BD04F258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1698426355; x=1698685555; bh=xJBRZGbPOSHw/n24hh+UdpiovtZMAEEwkvAsb3267Z8=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=ot7K62C3WssxKSzgkGhnER4Y1rYU2QWMpQWWO7OGcCizbmFXAItB7ysVAZnpur9Od wt2+WPLQisOqGvs8YOvyWR6mWdSFu3g+lmvs2vwAu5rAN6A9p0dkDwmCY9HGYq/Kcs hM1hGZXB94fdVSp0hn48UvNNFIMCZW1YeQGig67j04IKE3rDHIRDD9iv/X35AqE6i7 AergZ3i4mmRm/iy+UY2ZGTBgxpI/wzP97CSabxere8CHb3/1fqh42hElYEIn3udzXf OKKa796NJdoKKwtQr1YPZ5cLKQV+6JPwUbebjmiuAeoqyFsgzsThYNjYpJONkXis4T 4SA63fC2+9keQ== Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:05:46 +0000 To: Peter Todd From: alicexbt Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <5b641ddc-a30b-4dd7-2481-6d9cdb459359@dashjr.org> Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:03:28 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinals BIP PR X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:06:05 -0000 Hi Peter, > At that point, why are we bothering with numbers at all? If BIP #'s aren'= t memorable, what is their purpose? Why not just let people publish ideas on their own web pages and figure out what we're going to call those ideas on = a case-by-case basis. I agree people can maintain BIPs in their own repositories. I will list all= the=20 BIPs that are not maintained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository = on=20 https://bips.wiki /dev/fd0 floppy disk guy Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, October 27th, 2023 at 3:41 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 03:56:55PM -0700, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-= dev wrote: >=20 > > TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to assign BIP numbers, so we = can > > spend time on more impactful things. >=20 >=20 > Yes, an easy way to do that is to use a mathematical function, like SHA25= 6() >=20 > or Pubkey(). >=20 >=20 > Of course, that's also silly, as we might as well use URLs at that point.= .. >=20 > > IIUC, one the primary roles of the dedicated BIP maintainers is just to= hand > > out BIP numbers for documents. Supposedly with this privilege, the BIP > > maintainer is able to tastefully assign related BIPs to consecutive num= bers, > > and also reserve certain BIP number ranges for broad categories, like 3= xx > > for p2p changes (just an example). > >=20 > > To my knowledge, the methodology for such BIP number selection isn't > > published anywhere, and is mostly arbitrary. As motioned in this thread= , > > some perceive this manual process as a gatekeeping mechanism, and often > > ascribe favoritism as the reason why PR X got a number immediately, but= PR Y > > has waited N months w/o an answer. > >=20 > > Every few years we go through an episode where someone is rightfully up= set > > that they haven't been assigned a BIP number after following the requis= ite > > process. Most recently, another BIP maintainer was appointed, with the = hope > > that the second maintainer would help to alleviate some of the subjecti= ve > > load of the position. Fast forward to this email thread, and it doesn't > > seem like adding more BIP maintainers will actually help with the issue= of > > BIP number assignment. > >=20 > > Instead, what if we just removed the subjective human element from the > > process, and switched to using PR numbers to assign BIPs? Now instead o= f > > attempting to track down a BIP maintainer at the end of a potentially > > involved review+iteration period, PRs are assigned BIP numbers as soon = as > > they're opened and we have one less thing to bikeshed and gatekeep. > >=20 > > One down side of this is that assuming the policy is adopted, we'll sor= ta > > sky rocket the BIP number space. At the time of writing of this email, = the > > next PR number looks to be 1508. That doesn't seem like a big deal to m= e, > > but we could offset that by some value, starting at the highest current= ly > > manually assigned BIP number. BIP numbers would no longer always be > > contiguous, but that's sort of already the case. > >=20 > > There's also the matter of related BIPs, like the segwit series (BIPs 1= 41, > > 142, 143, 144, and 145). For these, we can use a suffix scheme to indic= ate > > the BIP lineage. So if BIP 141 was the first PR, then BIP 142 was opene= d > > later, the OP can declare the BIP 142 is BIP 141.2 or BIP 141-2. I don'= t > > think it would be too difficult to find a workable scheme. >=20 >=20 > At that point, why are we bothering with numbers at all? If BIP #'s aren'= t > memorable, what is their purpose? Why not just let people publish ideas o= n > their own web pages and figure out what we're going to call those ideas o= n a > case-by-case basis. >=20 > All this gets back to my original point: a functioning BIP system is > inherently centralized and involves human gatekeepers who inevitably have= to > apply standards to approve BIPs. You can't avoid this as long as you want= a BIP > system. >=20 > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev