> Since it is spent it does not bloat the mempool.
This is not the case. If you post some 100 kB TapScript, with some Ordinal,
then it of course bloats mempools, because then other users could post 100 kB
less, when it comes to regular payments. If you have Ordinals in the current
form, then
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1:11 AM wrote:
> > Since it is spent it does not bloat the mempool.
>
> This is not the case. If you post some 100 kB TapScript, with some
> Ordinal, then it of course bloats mempools, because then other users could
> post 100 kB less, when it comes to regular payments.
Please see inline.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 3:21 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 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 would accept it, if each Ordinal
> 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 would accept it, if each Ordinal would require including OP_RETURN at the
beginning of the TapScript, to prevent them from being pushed on-chain. In that
case, they
Hello,
I have developed nodes/wallets for Bitcoin and Bitcoin-derived Altcoins.
3rd-party Bitcoin developers take BIPs very seriously, basically as
must-implement/must-comply features.
Therefore, I think it would be best to restrict BIPs to the minimum
necessary to implement a complying
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
Hi Peter,
> At that point, why are we bothering with numbers at all? If BIP #'s aren't
memorable, what is their purpose? Why not just let people publish ideas on
their own web pages and figure out what we're going to call those ideas on a
case-by-case basis.
I agree people can maintain BIPs in
A mostly self-managed scheme without exploding number spaces and half-decent
quality control:
New ideas and proposals-in-development are in a draft/discussion state without
any assigned or reserved BIP ordinal and remain as such until the following
three conditions are true:
1 - author(s)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 03:56:55PM -0700, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to assign BIP numbers, so we can
> spend time on more impactful things.
Yes, an easy way to do that is to use a mathematical function, like SHA256()
or Pubkey().
Of
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 06:32:47PM +0200, Tim Ruffing wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 15:35 +, 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
> >
I think this is a good idea, but suggest that the numbers include year and
number in the year. We do that for all the research and “wallet improvement
proposals” at Blockchain Commons. This way numbers don’t grow huge like
EIPs currently do.
I might also suggest that the numbers are only
Seems like a "solution" looking for a problem which doesn't actually
exist. And not even a good "solution" for that - might as well not have
BIP number at all, if they're not going to be usefully assigned. What we
have now is working fine aside from a few trolls once in a while.
On 10/24/23
TL;DR: let's just use an automated system to assign BIP numbers, so we can
spend time on more impactful things.
IIUC, one the primary roles of the dedicated BIP maintainers is just to hand
out BIP numbers for documents. Supposedly with this privilege, the BIP
maintainer is able to tastefully
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
Hi Luke,
> 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.
I don't think adding another editor solves the problem discussed in this
thread.
Last
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
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +, 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
On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 15:35 +, 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
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
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:38:01PM -0700, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:38:01PM -0700, Casey Rodarmor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
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.
22 matches
Mail list logo
