On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 12:00:04AM -0700, e...@voskuil.org wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > > Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy" > > > > BIPs are a courtesy in the first place. > > > I suppose if you felt that you were the authority then this would be > > > your perspective. > > You seem to think that I'm arguing courtesy is not a good thing, or that > we > > couldn't use more of it? > That is neither what I said nor implied. You were clearly dismissing the > public process, not advocating for politeness.
And that is neither what I said nor implied, nor something I believe. If you think courtesy is something that can be ignored in a public process, I don't think you should expect much success. If you'd like to actually participate in public standards development, please feel free to make some technical comments on my proposals, or others, or make your own proposal, either here or on github, or heck, anywhere else. I mean, that's what I'd suggest anyway; I'm not your boss. I promise to at least be entertainingly surprised if you make any progress with your current approach though. Cheers, aj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
