* [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
@ 2012-01-29 22:40 Amir Taaki
2012-01-29 22:50 ` Luke-Jr
2012-01-29 23:02 ` Matt Corallo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Amir Taaki @ 2012-01-29 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
Hi all,
Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago (before the BIP process existed).
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals
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.
Ergo I am going to say:
NO BIP EXISTED BEFORE THE BIP PROCESS.
NEW BIPS ARE ALWAYS DRAFT STATUS.
BIPS CHANGE STATUS AS SPECIFIED IN BIP 0001
Luke claims I do not have the ability to specify those conditions above.
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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
2012-01-29 22:40 [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid Amir Taaki
@ 2012-01-29 22:50 ` Luke-Jr
2012-01-29 23:02 ` Matt Corallo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luke-Jr @ 2012-01-29 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development, Amir Taaki
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
2012-01-29 22:40 [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid Amir Taaki
2012-01-29 22:50 ` Luke-Jr
@ 2012-01-29 23:02 ` Matt Corallo
2012-01-29 23:10 ` Luke-Jr
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Matt Corallo @ 2012-01-29 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
I have to say, I agree with Luke here, this was Finalized a long time
ago. The version that was agreed on can be seen at
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
Also see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6205.0 and Luke's three
biased polls at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6206.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6207.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6208.0
Matt
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 14:40 -0800, Amir Taaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago (before the BIP process existed).
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals
>
>
> 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.
>
> Ergo I am going to say:
>
> NO BIP EXISTED BEFORE THE BIP PROCESS.
>
> NEW BIPS ARE ALWAYS DRAFT STATUS.
>
> BIPS CHANGE STATUS AS SPECIFIED IN BIP 0001
>
> Luke claims I do not have the ability to specify those conditions above.
>
> 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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
2012-01-29 23:02 ` Matt Corallo
@ 2012-01-29 23:10 ` Luke-Jr
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luke-Jr @ 2012-01-29 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:02:30 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> I have to say, I agree with Luke here, this was Finalized a long time
> ago. The version that was agreed on can be seen at
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
No, that never had a consensus.
> Also see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6205.0 and Luke's three
> biased polls at
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6206.0
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6207.0
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6208.0
As everyone can observe from your bitcointalk links, you didn't begin trolling
until months after the URI Scheme was Finalized (in January 2011).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-29 23:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-01-29 22:40 [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid Amir Taaki
2012-01-29 22:50 ` Luke-Jr
2012-01-29 23:02 ` Matt Corallo
2012-01-29 23:10 ` Luke-Jr
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox