From: Toby Padilla <tobypadilla@gmail•com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:27:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGcHOzyScNoLT=rHY0BMZvCowYG_WyQ8u-xu=4vHE8xWHraAOQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2577 bytes --]
My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki
The editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it
with his new proposed BIP :)
I really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned
the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. There was deep vetting,
lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his personal opinions to
accept the BIP.
That being said...
The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no idea
if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally
understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when people
who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against
you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very
centralized and discouraging.
I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP
commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing list
and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the
> > > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust
> value,
> > > it makes no sense to object to it.
> >
> > I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard
> > requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP
> > document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby
> > wallet vendors to implement it.
> >
> > While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature
> > itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression
> > that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.
>
> I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about
> this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself,
> in the hope you take the concerns into account.
>
> These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a
> BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally
> dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.
>
> Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement
> it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3494 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-02 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-26 1:02 Toby Padilla
2016-01-26 2:24 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-01-26 2:54 ` Toby Padilla
2016-01-26 2:56 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-01-26 3:01 ` Toby Padilla
2016-01-26 3:04 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-01-26 3:07 ` Toby Padilla
2016-01-26 3:12 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-01-26 3:17 ` Toby Padilla
2016-01-26 3:23 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-01-26 3:30 ` Toby Padilla
2016-01-26 16:19 ` Thomas Kerin
2016-01-26 17:44 ` Toby Padilla
2016-02-02 17:03 ` Peter Todd
2016-02-02 17:16 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-02-02 17:27 ` Toby Padilla [this message]
2016-02-02 17:38 ` Peter Todd
2016-02-02 17:41 ` Toby Padilla
2016-02-02 19:12 ` Peter Todd
2016-02-02 19:22 ` Toby Padilla
2016-02-02 19:14 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-01-26 14:37 ` Andreas Schildbach
2016-01-26 17:41 ` Toby Padilla
2016-02-02 17:07 ` Peter Todd
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='CAGcHOzyScNoLT=rHY0BMZvCowYG_WyQ8u-xu=4vHE8xWHraAOQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=tobypadilla@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(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