On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote:
On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:
If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the
author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),
It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to
them all in due time, likely before the end of the month.
Please don't play dumb, it isn't a good look.
Rather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the
BIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or
that the preexisting Core+Taproot client is "breaking" the spec. And to
further their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special
treatment.
I'd be curious who is doing that, because obviously I'd agree that merging something in a BIP doesn't really have any
special meaning. This, however, is a completely different topic from following the BIP process that you had a key hand
in crafting.
I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment,
and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP
process.
Again, please don't play dumb, no one watching believes this - you've been active on the BIP repo on numerous PRs and
this has never in the past been the case.
Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to
(fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST
advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing" (to
use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under
their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin
Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus).
Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
