On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 06:32:47PM +0200, Tim Ruffing wrote: > On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 15:35 +0000, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > 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. > > BIPs are Bitcoin Improvement *Proposals*. What you suggest would imply
BIPs being proposals is itself part of the problem. Note how RFCs have a Draft RFC system to avoid giving numbers for absolutely every idea. > that someone needs to evaluate them even before they become proposals. > And this raises plenty of notoriously hard to answers questions: > * Who is in charge? > * How to predict if a proposal will be a widespread standard? > * What is the core mission of Bitcoin? > * How to measure if something is for the core mission? > * Who and what is the _entire_ Bitcoin community? ...and we still face those problems with the current BIPs system. In particular the "Who is in charge?" problem. BIPs are always going to be a centralized system. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
