Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:43:29 +0000
From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <ZTawwRqGN4XUUu8C@camus>
References: <CANLPe+OQBsPiTrLEfz=SMxU8TkM_1XNfJQeq8gt2V6vDu=+Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTaSwtvctmIiF74k@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZTaSwtvctmIiF74k@petertodd.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinals BIP PR
Precedence: list


--tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:35:30PM +0000, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>=20
> 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 timestamped wit=
h OTS.
> I have not, because there is no need to document every single little prot=
ocol
> that happens to use Bitcoin with a BIP.
>=20
> Frankly we've been using BIPs for too many things. There is no avoiding t=
he act
> that BIP assignment and acceptance is a mark of approval for a protocol. =
Thus
> we should limit BIP assignment to the minimum possible: _extremely_ wides=
pread
> standards used by the _entire_ Bitcoin community, for the core mission of
> Bitcoin.
>

This would eliminate most wallet-related protocols e.g. BIP69 (sorted
keys), ypubs, zpubs, etc. I don't particularly like any of those but if
they can't be BIPs then they'd need to find another spec repository
where they wouldn't be lost and where updates could be tracked.

The SLIP repo could serve this purpose, and I think e.g. SLIP39 is not a BIP
in part because of perceived friction and exclusivity of the BIPs repo.
But I'm not thrilled with this situation.

In fact, I would prefer that OpenTimestamps were a BIP :).

> It's notable that Lightning is _not_ standardized via the BIP process. I =
think
> that's a good thing. While it's arguably of wide enough use to warrent BI=
Ps,
> Lightning doesn't need the approval of Core maintainers, and using their
> separate BOLT process makes that clear.
>=20

Well, LN is a bit special because it's so big that it can have its own
spec repo which is actively maintained and used.

While it's technically true that BIPs need "approval of Core maintainers"=
=20
to be merged, the text of BIP2 suggests that this approval should be a
functionary role and be pretty-much automatic. And not require the BIP
be relevant or interesting or desireable to Core developers.


--=20
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
    -Justin Lewis-Webster


--tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEkPnKPD7Je+ki35VexYjWPOQbl8EFAmU2sMAACgkQxYjWPOQb
l8Ge+wf9FN1qjel3stJ6wiqOuQfXq0gXXeB8YKfkhvwNf2K9atCpDMd/LcFwA5zY
0fbsZDRTHNhWz6tLYwNo1/cbrumkWg4yKzehdblL2FEMpvbxE6V1de3Xo1fNPxnC
NIVoppdVSMuSNYaolmGEpi/l3iL0ejbLwRnA3gjRKMdlIVHM7b19eUC1f2xp2CWt
yDhyTVp/3jzL1iJFYYVkzWWALYvBa1Vs1FB7ZzNRo85jQabbR1M2KAWc8AmQWfjl
somxkLym3v1kfbtsc3cDtxVKV32V7xrrrhfFDPcvgELOX2FgCAPxyY/5LZEF63Tz
TM9w2vgdphiKLUTDDeCiHBnDCqzxHQ==
=qWyE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tB+9CGnfCVAcI8WV--