From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Thu, 28 May 2026 11:31:24 -0700 Received: from mail-oa1-f60.google.com ([209.85.160.60]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wSfVr-0003ZN-Qx for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:31:24 -0700 Received: by mail-oa1-f60.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43a5232c87esf6452401fac.3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:31:23 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1779993073; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=ZmZsu7ASSxKfmepiGhEDYnNWyKXyNHJCSqQMYQxev0KuN9ZtWQsdwWcFzARQi/yLZf K60u+jUudWkhFSFk1Z6vjJE9qfSVDW6kA3AWpVtMxLewV66pjNybv033ppArwFENioPL zmgwSxKEEKy/aqenp/Qe2QaM0BVEf1D0b+LgSPXCAxGgwmyuY7QnSeltfDd817slSWnP xTcf0U+WDFRoIgEmBNE8gZMsiEI7o60epWHL6yT1mi+IIsH+wwN+Snr7MhcSjRTm77+i PK4+HGOr0MAtocaO/0msTML+1tPZQmSWnCIfIIaiHKIaQHvZvPuzSRPLIk8SK1XmjqM/ jItw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:from:content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:sender:dkim-signature; bh=F2XGrxHyNlRy9ckI5xToobFfgZi7E5/at9YF66opTfI=; fh=vXxqiDf13uizSWo9GULVEvY+vHM7jhoNunGTzu8uA6o=; b=flezfkh/k11a2IcLVBWOGZPiHmJAThp1mPtcOSc6jAn1m6TwggWLNrewc/++cExvKc V6yXdU7rhfefDCXFv/RKDZ7KG6IAW2ykZTQYl5N21JIoDooN/uLnvyRsu1K/k60bXQtK XZxb1LnMED0MFHE8xfw+jCstpmm/mZULzVcedJNdefsprXTnUzS1pm1PsV6QAjI1aZGy YWfFRjqK+Vp987k5d6/9MDEgR/dr6dxEuF1i+vpXnDiifI5KO/WmxM0tAAOIUEeNpa3C df6S7ub9eUTNM51mDxn96Suh0qDbNdlIEgBFvne9w1w+N9w6yoW4VbCAqgwowA8OTXZ3 XQvw==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@murch.one header.s=uberspace header.b=rthsRIeP; spf=pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=murch@murch.one DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20251104; t=1779993073; x=1780597873; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=F2XGrxHyNlRy9ckI5xToobFfgZi7E5/at9YF66opTfI=; b=SfiFvkFQ4/FZiKB1kFF1pNQPQF2LxuznohW5PH5oTr5F40ghxxM+LiIzm/+C/FLklm A1hKVL0nAYM0DkYz+BruovgNmkpIMDFb1q+xqzbhcsUaxsmXHO/aDENUIAJODHHkdnFS E0AXkeiz1jgr654Ts991504tMmuVIdq1lnWGZ/PcdkESSMquhGBnpO4jJybuX1duKDqp lUsGMInXF4AjH/g9Fo13DeOOM1a7ciHBsuH8RH2yAO+d8+xFZmOSsZWObMy1pTQKrUeH mMGS4jKfpjZXsob9GGQS1t9gt8rOgu54w0+6TJH7nwD74jKgHK7w1MeWimmvo2bopSkg vfXA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1779993073; x=1780597873; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=F2XGrxHyNlRy9ckI5xToobFfgZi7E5/at9YF66opTfI=; b=d05XguYZn6728JTBI/qIpjqTl6a5Qs7CiVGd1fPqw9dOGPzqomEf61ZlGKb0biMLuI EifXjAd7W/n8aXQp4p8Hoczu6ZR0bXPUgWl2v+FyCHp2d2j4Ux6iyb96CUu6th8+ITlg DcIPP3FSQYaA2Tnb4IX3IFDMwHYvjSKSTb2je/213rjoCVnXTxKdkb/jamm0olhwUgkh GtUzAjiIRVzs4nlZTpCgd+fd2QoFdYHvCgKleU4d1y1PNTH2i9G4er0LdB8/dDrdi0dK AbOb1t3OWDUb7Maz7oNaoqSrUzMeUhu6kMr5EQZqQwn14tdlfAQvYPtD5VbvXhIVXRph AwjA== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AFNElJ/0jDf0BCaZJDjHzpxFPjbJD1COFj2/mFcCC3aIfmPUWyO0KxHS6SxH2EERLrUsPFM0lLDHTf+qd/jd@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz4RfV/h5M5/nc292h7Lk4M39BMmA0Coi9q1eAeNLiQ50AKW1zG VI2WHsJcrJWweHl6HMhglwdvc34naaAYst1gtRis3Vp1fDQ7w4KGXw9O X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:a193:b0:439:dc43:e1cf with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43b5b09e702mr15704345fac.35.1779993073518; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:31:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="AUV6zMPb97tmFqUqVTfJdaLKbiaTcHpiLA9o2aPUVSwiY65VIA==" Received: by 2002:a05:6871:61c7:b0:439:d496:4daf with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43c5148686als794420fac.0.-pod-prod-01-us; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:13d5:b0:485:4c4a:23c2 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-485e3a05372mr278219b6e.0.1779993066352; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a50:ed09:0:b0:672:bd1b:222f with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-68ad31cc171msa12; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:d8c:b0:bd2:bd3:1ef8 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-be97431d6bbmr20331666b.35.1779992933100; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1779992933; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=KiY56wygSQZV7QoceY+VyVqiAv5e03IxGuvZPvfkZD9y8efQu8Hz5Ag9MUQuemyjd5 Fx92tRh38oN9/SNqmY0f8BQ/Kkydb23XenVGi9d83AY0dENx8ESs+6QC5hZf0szKEH/p fAhU1nzBVvxw2iK8mkmabCsqP6xn9vXR/Yj7XvfHIZVTVzQhrvBTnoVq/eQUf9gW2Qzv m+rZB2w9hRSRzeOL+yt379NPV2cgbvASnn1APRSOFbwCIpi4YSuz0782Jv0aNvjAIdbG bqY2OodXSGw74HUwVekHempkwwEbjrWRiVfoaUDwLTO2k5ST4EW/aiMKRy2qBOXU9zfw PCBw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=dkim-signature:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id; bh=dseN+sDUm8x7OvCo6pzAW+5zEzKaq+PUuh502FP+Nss=; fh=VcGcg+Zjs9gw1uDcHbxsAILhBAcecnbJzZRdxgKVDIc=; b=CQLFFXp90xher92WtP2DNCT1YsTj7GFy7lggrrqV6TlOkblbJitgusQo0kV+vS3d5i e9Ttv7vAWZjjLsWYzlQ/VQJYOC+CwemH75rCBYGY1KpOCYT78IPlVnsEAx+HJwMk+JyI HG7cOnMyOl0C2buShBub3/TqZOviD20VzF2wnGsoR97iyggk80w6nyGMQFeWFTrdvBFM VxN90NJ9bS9aaCdm3cFtLtJ0UKdMqD0tNYsNRrt6rZ3DHRXwAVGPNPDGQgKuhTWsR8Ow RGGMBLn6ufDY1+rN4D6cWVhF7LAqakLMrwNZGDBa+Fhzx1j67ejJ2k46icvo7YOziRKb pLrw==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@murch.one header.s=uberspace header.b=rthsRIeP; spf=pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=murch@murch.one Received: from mailgate02.uberspace.is (mailgate02.uberspace.is. [2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-68b4ffa726bsi36041a12.5.2026.05.28.11.28.53 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 May 2026 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4; Received: from farbauti.uberspace.de (farbauti.uberspace.de [185.26.156.235]) by mailgate02.uberspace.is (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C297317F7A2 for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 20:28:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 15666 invoked by uid 989); 28 May 2026 18:28:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO unknown) (::1) by farbauti.uberspace.de (Haraka/3.1.1) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 28 May 2026 20:28:52 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 11:28:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] BIP 3 and issues on BIPs To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com References: Content-Language: en-US From: Murch In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Bar: --- X-Rspamd-Report: BAYES_HAM(-2.999999) XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01) MIME_GOOD(-0.1) X-Rspamd-Score: -3.089999 X-Original-Sender: murch@murch.one X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@murch.one header.s=uberspace header.b=rthsRIeP; spf=pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=murch@murch.one Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) Hi AJ, AJ wrote: > 1) feedback that the BIP author(s) agree is a concern, but=20 haven't figured out how to address > 2) feedback that the BIP author(s)=20 strongly disagree with, but that is considered a reasonable concern more=20 broadly > 3) feedback that is mostly dismissed as trolling and not taken=20 seriously outside of a very small group > I wonder if it would be=20 feasible to include the first two sorts of feedback directly in the BIPs=20 repo, making it much easier to find. We removed the Comment system, because it had vanishing adoption and=20 resulted in the few submitted comments having an overstated=20 representation in the criticized document=E2=80=99s preamble. Due to the la= ck=20 of=C2=A0 authentication, wiki content was also often low quality and=20 occasionally defaced. BIP3 already recommends that the Rationale should=20 record relevant objections or important concerns that were raised and=20 addressed as this proposal was developed. Open issues are also already=20 often recorded in Draft BIPs. We now allow linking to multiple relevant=20 discussions=E2=80=94new threads should be added as a document matures. In a= n=20 ideal world this would already cover at least the first two classes of=20 feedback. In principle I am open to the idea to collect a summary of the=20 discussion and dissent in a dedicated space, but there was hardly any=20 commentary even when anyone could post it without any friction. Why=20 should we expect this more arduous approach to have more adoption than=20 the comment system? My expectation would be that going via pull requests=20 and curation would not create more commentary, but the same amount of=20 commentary would increase work and decision making for the BIP Editors,=20 especially if the expectation is that BIP Editors collect such feedback=20 for BIPs when the authors or dissenters do not submit it. The mailing list seems like a fine place for these discussions. It seems=20 to me that they receive a good amount of visibility there.=C2=A0If someone= =20 observes that BIP authors have insufficiently documented issues and=20 concerns in their documents, this should be raised in relevant PRs or on=20 the mailing list=E2=80=94just as it e.g., was recently done for BIP54 which= led=20 to improvements of Motivation and Rationale of BIP54. > I think this would be a substantial improvement on the state of the=20 art for things like BIP 39 and its "Unanimously discourage for=20 implementation" criticisms,[=E2=80=A6] This issue has already been addressed. When BIP3 was deployed, I removed=20 all Comment URL headers that linked to empty wikis, and only left those=20 that had content.=C2=A0BIP3 empowers=C2=B9 BIP Owners to decide whether to = remove=20 or keep Comment Summary and Comment URL from their BIPs. To be fair,=20 this information may need to be spread more broadly. > [=E2=80=A6] or, eg, creating issues against bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin [= 0], or commenting on old, closed PRs [1]. The latter was my mistake. I should have just emailed BIP authors=20 directly instead of commenting on the ancient PRs that submitted the=20 corresponding documents, or opened up a PR to propose the changes to get=20 the authors=E2=80=99 input on them. =C2=B9 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md#comments Cheers, Murch On 2026-05-26 18:51, Anthony Towns wrote: > From bips#2175: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2175#issuecomment-4= 550089883 > >>> Lastly, the BIPs repo does not have an Issues tab. An Issues tab would >>> allow for discussion of such things without opening a demonstrative PR. >> (There may be other reasons, but one hypothesis amongst the BIP editors >> as to why there is no Issues tab, was that the idea was to have those >> discussions take place on the mailing list.) > (Presumably, there was also the BIPs wiki for comments about BIPs, > though that's no longer encouraged as of BIP 3) > > I think not having some "centralised" place for finding previous > discussions/feedback about a BIP is a flaw in BIP 3 as it stands -- > searching across bitcoin-dev, delving, stacker.news, twitter, nostr, > random blogs, etc is certainly possible, but it would be nicer if that > were a fallback, rather than the only option. > > I think there's basically three classes of feedback: > > 1) feedback that the BIP author(s) agree is a concern, but haven't > figured out how to address > > 2) feedback that the BIP author(s) strongly disagree with, but that > is considered a reasonable concern more broadly > > 3) feedback that is mostly dismissed as trolling and not taken seriousl= y > outside of a very small group > > I wonder if it would be feasible to include the first two sorts of > feedback directly in the BIPs repo, making it much easier to find. > > For example, class 1 feedback could be added directly to the affected BIP > with the agreement of the author(s), under a new top-level "Unresolved > issues" section or similar. (Issues that are "resolved" can presumably > be addressed more directly in the BIP, eg under the "Rationale" section) > > Presumably, BIPs that have an "Unresolved issues" section would not > progress to "Complete". > > Class 2 feedback, where the BIP *editors* agree it's a reasonable concern= , > despite the *author(s)* NACKing it, could be placed under a dedicated > BIP for class-2 feedback across the repo that's maintained by the BIP > editors, perhaps as bip-xxxx/feedback-bip-yyyy.md. I guess bip-xxxx > could actually just be bip-0003. > > Hopefully editors would be able to do a fairly quick/easy private vote to > make decisions here, just a call on "is this worth surfacing to everyone > or is it better left on whoever's blog?" rather than "do I agree with > this criticism or not?". > > Both these types of feedback could then be refined over time to their > best version by filing PRs on the bips repo. And just as bips themselves > can have "Discussion" links, feedback items (whether class 1 or 2) could > also have links to broader/more-detailed discussion of the feedback on > mailing lists / blog posts / etc. > > I think this would be a substantial improvement on the state of the art > for things like BIP 39 and its "Unanimously discourage for implementation= " > criticisms, or, eg, creating issues against bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin > [0], or commenting on old, closed PRs [1]. > > [0] https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/issues/74 > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/682#issuecomment-4503369974 > > Class 3 feedback, where both the BIP authors and the BIP editor group > don't think it's valuable to surface, would still have to be raised > externally and found by web searches. > > (For class 2 feedback where the people complaining also have a solution > in mind that the BIP authors have rejected, the obvious solution is to > create a new BIP aimed at replacing the existing BIP) > > Cheers, > aj > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= db744821-940e-4f76-9a54-9c763ce7ce1e%40murch.one.