From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6838EC0032 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421F0612B8 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 421F0612B8 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mail.wpsoftware.net header.i=@mail.wpsoftware.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Zt0Xk7pb X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X_ME9PNS7cIe for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wpsoftware.net (unknown [66.183.0.205]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EEE612B7 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 65EEE612B7 Received: from camus (camus-andrew.lan [192.168.0.190]) by mail.wpsoftware.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7BE540106 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.wpsoftware.net; s=default; t=1698083010; bh=BZsWoAGbqWI92XdzSx2CfWKuDWTgGcpEy/WcsAXaNik=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Zt0Xk7pbbP1fVLlPLaXJjGMePVSrPF517o2hQ34ohW9CJgkoOCpmZKmsptrlmMaS+ nIUwz0UHaJn80idUiqcd98ntjIr/RPzM9l+v36FL8hOW2XlSqfu9ZsAENELLbCyBlO JoYHQPUIc3pHB8FMuPpY5F7GhY9lP0ZD5joqZiqcdgOuCuLjZRK/Sa0IWLZDEIxaYa MvBIUvOj4f5jandvSFlxV1kuco8ISrOqbe2jixadlMK6OkkLXVZe2j6aV8kEwjkGap DuNkgpyAuNN8SRsCvH7lMOMZyfdDhgaPUN29e94zttlJECFHmun47svU7JapW9IxQe W4qyLoi7iiarQ== Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:29 +0000 From: Andrew Poelstra To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:32 -0000 --tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +0000, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > I have _not_ requested a BIP for OpenTimestamps, even though it is of much > wider relevance to Bitcoin users than Ordinals by virtue of the fact that= much > of the commonly used software, including Bitcoin Core, is timestamped wit= h OTS. > I have not, because there is no need to document every single little prot= ocol > that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP. >=20 > Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things. There is no avoiding t= he act > that BIP assignment and acceptance is a mark of approval for a protocol. = Thus > we should limit BIP assignment to the minimum possible: _extremely_ wides= pread > standards used by the _entire_ Bitcoin community, for the core mission of > Bitcoin. > This would eliminate most wallet-related protocols e.g. BIP69 (sorted keys), ypubs, zpubs, etc. I don't particularly like any of those but if they can't be BIPs then they'd need to find another spec repository where they wouldn't be lost and where updates could be tracked. The SLIP repo could serve this purpose, and I think e.g. SLIP39 is not a BIP in part because of perceived friction and exclusivity of the BIPs repo. But I'm not thrilled with this situation. In fact, I would prefer that OpenTimestamps were a BIP :). > It's notable that Lightning is _not_ standardized via the BIP process. I = think > that's a good thing. While it's arguably of wide enough use to warrent BI= Ps, > Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core maintainers, and using their > separate BOLT process makes that clear. >=20 Well, LN is a bit special because it's so big that it can have its own spec repo which is actively maintained and used. While it's technically true that BIPs need "approval of Core maintainers"= =20 to be merged, the text of BIP2 suggests that this approval should be a functionary role and be pretty-much automatic. And not require the BIP be relevant or interesting or desireable to Core developers. --=20 Andrew Poelstra Director of Research, Blockstream Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew The sun is always shining in space -Justin Lewis-Webster --tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEkPnKPD7Je+ki35VexYjWPOQbl8EFAmU2sMAACgkQxYjWPOQb l8Ge+wf9FN1qjel3stJ6wiqOuQfXq0gXXeB8YKfkhvwNf2K9atCpDMd/LcFwA5zY 0fbsZDRTHNhWz6tLYwNo1/cbrumkWg4yKzehdblL2FEMpvbxE6V1de3Xo1fNPxnC NIVoppdVSMuSNYaolmGEpi/l3iL0ejbLwRnA3gjRKMdlIVHM7b19eUC1f2xp2CWt yDhyTVp/3jzL1iJFYYVkzWWALYvBa1Vs1FB7ZzNRo85jQabbR1M2KAWc8AmQWfjl somxkLym3v1kfbtsc3cDtxVKV32V7xrrrhfFDPcvgELOX2FgCAPxyY/5LZEF63Tz TM9w2vgdphiKLUTDDeCiHBnDCqzxHQ== =qWyE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV--