From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net,
Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo•com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:50:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201201291750.43042.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
First and foremost, I consider this thread an utter waste of time. These
matters were "finished" over a year ago, and there is no need to dig them up
again just because there are numbers for BIPs now. I don't intend to continue
this topic any further than necessary, since my time (and everyone else's) is
better spent working on *actual forward progress*, not this attempt to rewrite
history. That being said...
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:40:14 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
> Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago
> (before the BIP process existed).
Before the BIP process was formalized. The process itself existed long before.
> I respectfully disagree. I find it nonsensical to have a BIP to have been
> accepted before the BIP process existed. My feeling is that a BIP needs to
> go through the proper formalised motions in public before becoming
> accepted.
>
> The URI Scheme did not go through these motions. I did not know it was even
> accepted, and at least 2 implementations have objected to the standard as
> is. This is problematic because a standard is meant to be consensus
> building not enforcement from above.
It did. In early 2011, there was a consensus and multiple implementations (by
name, I know of at least Spesmilo and WalletBuddy). This is by definition the
Final status. It was not until months later that anyone objected to the
standard.
> Ergo I am going to say:
>
> NO BIP EXISTED BEFORE THE BIP PROCESS.
You are contradicting the assignment of BIP 0020 to a preexisting standard
here.
> NEW BIPS ARE ALWAYS DRAFT STATUS.
>
> BIPS CHANGE STATUS AS SPECIFIED IN BIP 0001
By trying to demote BIP 0020 from Final to Draft, you are not following the
specification in BIP 0001.
> Luke claims I do not have the ability to specify those conditions above.
Rather, I am claiming that assigning a number does not give you the authority
to demote a preexisting standard. No other standards organization has
attempted to claim preexisting standards don't exist or change their status.
> If there are any objections then please tell me. I did not get to observe
> the process for BIP 20, therefore I am not accepting it. Anybody is
> welcome to submit a competing BIP to Luke's BIP 20 (as has happened with
> BIP 16 and 17).
Anyone is welcome to submit a new BIP aimed at Superceding BIP 20 (and doing
so might make good sense soon, with various new functionality), but until that
occurs, BIP 20 remains the Final status it has been for a whole year now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-29 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-29 22:40 Amir Taaki
2012-01-29 22:50 ` Luke-Jr [this message]
2012-01-29 23:02 ` Matt Corallo
2012-01-29 23:10 ` Luke-Jr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201201291750.43042.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=zgenjix@yahoo$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox