Presumably the people using it feel it is an improvement. However you feel about it, Ordinals and Inscriptions are now a part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Whether Ordinals deserve a BIP is yet to be determined, but it doesn’t seem appropriate to try and force him to retract it. That solves nothing. If there is a reason this shouldn’t be a BIP, then that should be laid out as part of the process and formally rejected. Otherwise it should go through the normal process and be accepted. As it is, leaving it in limbo and just hoping that it goes away is not a solution. Thanks, Ryan Breen @ursuscamp > On Oct 23, 2023, at 12:49 PM, Léo Haf via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > BIPs such as the increase in block size, drives-chains, colored coins, > etc... were proposals for Bitcoin improvements. On the other hand, your BIP > brings absolutely no improvement, on the contrary it is a regression, but you > already know that. > > I strongly invite you to retract or if the desire continues to push you to > negatively affect the chain, to create OIPs or anything similar, as far as > possible from the development of Bitcoin and real BIPs that improve Bitcoin. > > Léo Haf. > >>> Le 23 oct. 2023 à 10:23, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : >>> >> >> Dear List, >> >> The Ordinals BIP PR has been sitting open for nine months now[0]. I've >> commented a few times asking the BIP editors to let me know what is needed >> for the BIP to either be merged or rejected. I've also reached out to the >> BIP editors via DM and email, but haven't received a response. >> >> 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. >> >> I believe ordinals is in-scope for a BIP, and am hoping to get the PR >> unstuck. I would appreciate feedback from the BIP editors on whether it is >> in-scope for a BIP, if not, why not, and if so, what changes need to be made >> for it to be accepted. >> >> Best regards, >> Casey Rodarmor >> >> [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
