Hi all, Luke is definitely entitled to his opinions about ordinals, and I certainly understand why people may not like ordinals and inscriptions.
I don't think that ordinals are "nonsense", an "attack on Bitcoin", or that I'm dishonest, as Luke implies, or that my actions are an attempt to "harm/destroy Bitcoin". I think that whether or not ordinals are good is something about which reasonable people do and will disagree, and that an impartial BIP editor would recognize this above their own personal feelings about the matter. Also, regarding: > 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. As I said in my initial email, I think these standards are being applied in a way that they have not been to previous BIPs, which include all manner of things, including changes to bitcoin which are nearly unanimously thought to be quite harmful if adopted. Best, Casey On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:35 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
