Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP process friction

From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail•com>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP process friction
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:47:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <jukOxw5FcU6syw4uF2sbFIMPK0RN1nUbUmu5G4zG4w5ZoU2gLOB2vGwHZ3_vEYyJQUQQDIc3w-C0t1anDDAz1tTry6-nCjG5a3nttuoARQc=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zac+rMC/c+qTmSxY@erisian.com.au>

Hi AJ,

I like the idea and agree with everything you shared in the email except one thing:

> So I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
> thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at:
> 
> * https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana

I think "authority" is a strong word especially in bitcoin and this process could even work with BINN (Bitcoin Inquisition Numbers And Names). IANA (a function of ICANN) is different thing altogether which was founded by US government.

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, January 17th, 2024 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Just under three years ago there was some discussion about the BIPs repo,
> with the result that Kalle became a BIPs editor in addition to Luke, eg:
> 
> * https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log
> * https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018859.html
> 
> It remains, however, quite hard to get BIPs merged into the repo, eg
> the following PRs have been open for quite some time:
> 
> * #1408: Ordinal Numbers; opened 2023-01-21, editors comments:
> Kalle:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1421641390
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1435389476
> 
> Luke:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1429146796
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1438831607
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1465016571
> 
> * #1489: Taproot Assets Protocol; opened 2023-09-07, editors comments:
> Kalle: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1489#issuecomment-1855079626
> Luke: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1489#issuecomment-1869721535j
> 
> * #1500: OP_TXHASH; opened 2023-09-30, editors comments:
> Luke:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1500#pullrequestreview-1796550166
> https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1735701932520382839
> 
> The range of acceptable BIPs seems to also be becoming more limited,
> such that mempool/relay policy is out of scope:
> 
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1524#issuecomment-1869734387
> 
> Despite having two editors, only Luke seems to be able to assign new
> numbers to BIPs, eg:
> 
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458#issuecomment-1597917780
> 
> There's also been some not very productive delays due to the editors
> wanting backwards compatibility sections even if authors don't think
> that's necessary, eg:
> 
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1372#issuecomment-1439132867
> 
> Even working out whether to go back to allowing markdown as a text format
> is a multi-month slog due to process confusion:
> 
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1504
> 
> Anyway, while it's not totally dysfunctional, it's very high friction.
> 
> There are a variety of recent proposals that have PRs open against
> inquisition; up until now I've been suggesting people write a BIP, and
> have been keying off the BIP number to signal activation. But that just
> seems to be introducing friction, when all I need is a way of linking
> an arbitrary number to a spec.
> 
> So I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
> thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at:
> 
> * https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana
> 
> If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals that don't have
> anything to do with inquisition, that's fine; I'm intending to apply the
> policies I think the BIPs repo should be using, so feel free to open a PR,
> even if you already know I think your idea is BS on its merits. If someone
> wants to write an automatic-merge-bot for me, that'd also be great.
> 
> If someone wants to reform the BIPs repo itself so it works better,
> that'd be even better, but I'm not volunteering for that fight.
> 
> Cheers,
> aj
> 
> (It's called "numbers and names" primarily because that way the acronym
> amuses me, but also in case inquisition eventually needs an authoritative
> dictionary for what "cat" or "txhash" or similar terms refer to)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev