On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:38:01PM -0700, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > <snip> > > There has been much misunderstanding of the nature of the BIP process. > BIPS, in particular informational BIPs, are a form of technical > documentation, and their acceptance does not indicate that they will be > included in any implementation, including Bitcoin Core, nor that they they > have consensus among the community. > > Preexisting BIPs include hard-fork block size increases, hard-fork > proof-of-work changes, colored coin voting protocols, rejected soft fork > proposals, encouragement of address reuse, and drivechain. > > <snip> >
I agree and I think it sets a bad precedent to be evaluating BIPs based on the merits of their implementation (vs their specification) or their consequences for the network. Actual consensus is much bigger than the BIPs repo, so this accomplishes little beyond making the BIPs repo itself hard to interact with. In the worst case it may cause people to interpret BIP numbers as indicating that proposals are "blessed" by some particular influential set of people, which can only cause problems. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
