From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F359BC0032
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A34706CC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org D5A34706CC
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=0kPMLY6r
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 2u7Wz8sDvdbL
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AE4706C9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 13AE4706C9
Received: from [192.168.86.103] (99-39-46-195.lightspeed.dybhfl.sbcglobal.net
[99.39.46.195]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56D8C38AFC74;
Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1698192915; bh=Jl/Us9O0tQWQ0UBvRFJe3apPr+2fBSO6+diGly/8Z+U=;
h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To;
b=0kPMLY6rkzseHcBm61uQI1OTfNrnrZGJNuYrVIKfQ0nCeC70oGPTaLEDhWzXGX1x/
YNb6Z7R3vkivVS0m2S0FMTrgKxdlgu3FaN0Mb5AwdvZ5b0sXbrOP1m8YedxnLgRfbi
76yC4e1AbA3HkYhDdthSQ20nsieOtt8u8lTu3AEo=
X-Hashcash: 1:23:231025:laolu32@gmail.com::73apE3o1pX81+bAx:elCU
X-Hashcash: 1:23:231025:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::AfRFl4Mqka52hGUU:dLjv
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80"
Message-ID: <f6c909b3-6851-f26d-3b30-a65232c1cc61@dashjr.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:15:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
To: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
<ZTaSwtvctmIiF74k@petertodd.org> <ZTawwRqGN4XUUu8C@camus>
<5b641ddc-a30b-4dd7-2481-6d9cdb459359@dashjr.org>
<CAO3Pvs_uUtCfhayU=3LCtpNGtkcDr=H0AM65bhNJcTMuBzWn_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAO3Pvs_uUtCfhayU=3LCtpNGtkcDr=H0AM65bhNJcTMuBzWn_w@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:15:21 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Seems like a "solution" looking for a problem which doesn't actually
exist. And not even a good "solution" for that - might as well not have
BIP number at all, if they're not going to be usefully assigned. What we
have now is working fine aside from a few trolls once in a while.
On 10/24/23 18:56, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to assign BIP numbers, so we can
> spend time on more impactful things.
>
> 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
> numbers,
> and also reserve certain BIP number ranges for broad categories, like 3xx
> for p2p changes (just an example).
>
> 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.
>
> Every few years we go through an episode where someone is rightfully upset
> that they haven't been assigned a BIP number after following the requisite
> process. Most recently, another BIP maintainer was appointed, with
> the hope
> that the second maintainer would help to alleviate some of the subjective
> 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.
>
> Instead, what if we just removed the subjective human element from the
> process, and switched to using PR numbers to assign BIPs? Now instead of
> 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.
>
> One down side of this is that assuming the policy is adopted, we'll sorta
> 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 me,
> but we could offset that by some value, starting at the highest currently
> manually assigned BIP number. BIP numbers would no longer always be
> contiguous, but that's sort of already the case.
>
> There's also the matter of related BIPs, like the segwit series (BIPs 141,
> 142, 143, 144, and 145). For these, we can use a suffix scheme to indicate
> the BIP lineage. So if BIP 141 was the first PR, then BIP 142 was opened
> 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.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Laolu
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:35 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Everything standardized between Bitcoin software is eligible to be
> and
> should be a BIP. I completely disagree with the claim that it's
> used for
> too many things.
>
> SLIPs exist for altcoin stuff. They shouldn't be used for things
> related
> to Bitcoin.
>
> BOLTs also shouldn't have ever been a separate process and should
> really
> just get merged into BIPs. But at this point, that will probably take
> quite a bit of effort, and obviously cooperation and active
> involvement
> from the Lightning development community.
>
> Maybe we need a 3rd BIP editor. Both Kalle and myself haven't had
> time
> to keep up. There are several PRs far more important than Ordinals
> nonsense that need to be triaged and probably merged.
>
> The issue with Ordinals is that it is actually unclear if it's
> eligible
> to be a BIP at all, since it is an attack on Bitcoin rather than a
> proposed improvement. There is a debate on the PR whether the
> "technically unsound, ..., or not in keeping with the Bitcoin
> philosophy." or "must represent a net improvement." clauses (BIP
> 2) are
> relevant. Those issues need to be resolved somehow before it could be
> merged. I have already commented to this effect and given my own
> opinions on the PR, and simply pretending the issues don't exist
> won't
> make them go away. (Nor is it worth the time of honest people to help
> Casey resolve this just so he can further try to harm/destroy
> Bitcoin.)
>
> Luke
>
>
> On 10/23/23 13:43, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +0000, Peter Todd via
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> 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 with OTS.
> >> I have not, because there is no need to document every single
> little protocol
> >> that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP.
> >>
> >> Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things. There is no
> avoiding the 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_ widespread
> >> 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 BIPs,
> >> Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core maintainers, and
> using their
> >> separate BOLT process makes that clear.
> >>
> > 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"
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Seems like a "solution" looking for a problem which doesn't
actually exist. And not even a good "solution" for that - might as
well not have BIP number at all, if they're not going to be
usefully assigned. What we have now is working fine aside from a
few trolls once in a while.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/24/23 18:56, Olaoluwa Osuntokun
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO3Pvs_uUtCfhayU=3LCtpNGtkcDr=H0AM65bhNJcTMuBzWn_w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to
assign BIP numbers, so we can<br>
spend time on more impactful things.<br>
<br>
IIUC, one the primary roles of the dedicated BIP maintainers
is just to hand<br>
out BIP numbers for documents. Supposedly with this privilege,
the BIP<br>
maintainer is able to tastefully assign related BIPs to
consecutive numbers,<br>
and also reserve certain BIP number ranges for broad
categories, like 3xx<br>
for p2p changes (just an example).<br>
<br>
To my knowledge, the methodology for such BIP number selection
isn't<br>
published anywhere, and is mostly arbitrary. As motioned in
this thread,<br>
some perceive this manual process as a gatekeeping mechanism,
and often<br>
ascribe favoritism as the reason why PR X got a number
immediately, but PR Y<br>
has waited N months w/o an answer.<br>
<br>
Every few years we go through an episode where someone is
rightfully upset<br>
that they haven't been assigned a BIP number after following
the requisite<br>
process. Most recently, another BIP maintainer was appointed,
with the hope<br>
that the second maintainer would help to alleviate some of the
subjective<br>
load of the position. Fast forward to this email thread, and
it doesn't<br>
seem like adding more BIP maintainers will actually help with
the issue of<br>
BIP number assignment.<br>
<br>
Instead, what if we just removed the subjective human element
from the<br>
process, and switched to using PR numbers to assign BIPs? Now
instead of<br>
attempting to track down a BIP maintainer at the end of a
potentially<br>
involved review+iteration period, PRs are assigned BIP numbers
as soon as<br>
they're opened and we have one less thing to bikeshed and
gatekeep.<br>
<br>
One down side of this is that assuming the policy is adopted,
we'll sorta<br>
sky rocket the BIP number space. At the time of writing of
this email, the<br>
next PR number looks to be 1508. That doesn't seem like a big
deal to me,<br>
but we could offset that by some value, starting at the
highest currently<br>
manually assigned BIP number. BIP numbers would no longer
always be<br>
contiguous, but that's sort of already the case.<br>
<br>
There's also the matter of related BIPs, like the segwit
series (BIPs 141,<br>
142, 143, 144, and 145). For these, we can use a suffix scheme
to indicate<br>
the BIP lineage. So if BIP 141 was the first PR, then BIP 142
was opened<br>
later, the OP can declare the BIP 142 is BIP 141.2 or BIP
141-2. I don't<br>
think it would be too difficult to find a workable scheme.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
-- Laolu<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at
11:35 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">Everything standardized
between Bitcoin software is eligible to be and <br>
should be a BIP. I completely disagree with the claim that
it's used for <br>
too many things.<br>
<br>
SLIPs exist for altcoin stuff. They shouldn't be used for
things related <br>
to Bitcoin.<br>
<br>
BOLTs also shouldn't have ever been a separate process and
should really <br>
just get merged into BIPs. But at this point, that will
probably take <br>
quite a bit of effort, and obviously cooperation and active
involvement <br>
from the Lightning development community.<br>
<br>
Maybe we need a 3rd BIP editor. Both Kalle and myself
haven't had time <br>
to keep up. There are several PRs far more important than
Ordinals <br>
nonsense that need to be triaged and probably merged.<br>
<br>
The issue with Ordinals is that it is actually unclear if
it's eligible <br>
to be a BIP at all, since it is an attack on Bitcoin rather
than a <br>
proposed improvement. There is a debate on the PR whether
the <br>
"technically unsound, ..., or not in keeping with the
Bitcoin <br>
philosophy." or "must represent a net improvement." clauses
(BIP 2) are <br>
relevant. Those issues need to be resolved somehow before it
could be <br>
merged. I have already commented to this effect and given my
own <br>
opinions on the PR, and simply pretending the issues don't
exist won't <br>
make them go away. (Nor is it worth the time of honest
people to help <br>
Casey resolve this just so he can further try to
harm/destroy Bitcoin.)<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/23/23 13:43, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +0000, Peter Todd
via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
>> I have _not_ requested a BIP for OpenTimestamps,
even though it is of much<br>
>> wider relevance to Bitcoin users than Ordinals by
virtue of the fact that much<br>
>> of the commonly used software, including Bitcoin
Core, is timestamped with OTS.<br>
>> I have not, because there is no need to document
every single little protocol<br>
>> that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP.<br>
>><br>
>> Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things.
There is no avoiding the act<br>
>> that BIP assignment and acceptance is a mark of
approval for a protocol. Thus<br>
>> we should limit BIP assignment to the minimum
possible: _extremely_ widespread<br>
>> standards used by the _entire_ Bitcoin community,
for the core mission of<br>
>> Bitcoin.<br>
>><br>
> This would eliminate most wallet-related protocols e.g.
BIP69 (sorted<br>
> keys), ypubs, zpubs, etc. I don't particularly like any
of those but if<br>
> they can't be BIPs then they'd need to find another
spec repository<br>
> where they wouldn't be lost and where updates could be
tracked.<br>
><br>
> The SLIP repo could serve this purpose, and I think
e.g. SLIP39 is not a BIP<br>
> in part because of perceived friction and exclusivity
of the BIPs repo.<br>
> But I'm not thrilled with this situation.<br>
><br>
> In fact, I would prefer that OpenTimestamps were a BIP
:).<br>
><br>
>> It's notable that Lightning is _not_ standardized
via the BIP process. I think<br>
>> that's a good thing. While it's arguably of wide
enough use to warrent BIPs,<br>
>> Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core
maintainers, and using their<br>
>> separate BOLT process makes that clear.<br>
>><br>
> Well, LN is a bit special because it's so big that it
can have its own<br>
> spec repo which is actively maintained and used.<br>
><br>
> While it's technically true that BIPs need "approval of
Core maintainers"<br>
> to be merged, the text of BIP2 suggests that this
approval should be a<br>
> functionary role and be pretty-much automatic. And not
require the BIP<br>
> be relevant or interesting or desireable to Core
developers.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------T00Yln10XGuXA609q8UvgJ80--