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
