Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:43:04 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160623124304.GA20280@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAPg+sBg90FxbEy1smp9mn+djF-N6PdUprtQ7r_kgvKCGbTHndQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160623113904.GA19686@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAPg+sBiqh80Q4Dfm0y6aEX+gHrcHZMq3tckejx8KDCPb-ikkOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160623121000.GA20073@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAPg+sBgCkD_54p10NgfDozFo+dNnm-mL1B=NyGYpkdrXgTtxUg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgCkD_54p10NgfDozFo+dNnm-mL1B=NyGYpkdrXgTtxUg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
Precedence: list


--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:16:48PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control;
> the
> > question now is what editorial policies should we exert?
>=20
> No, I do not. I am saying that some degree of editorial control will
> inevitably exist, simply because there is some human making the choice of
> assigning a BIP number and merging. My opinion is that we should try to
> restrict that editorial control to only be subject to objective process,
> and not be dependent on personal opinions.
>
> > My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on
> > ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't
> troll
> > and call that "advocating censorship"
>=20
> I think that you are free to express dislike of BIP75. Suggesting to remo=
ve
> it for that reason is utterly ridiculous to me, whatever you want to call
> it.

In the future we're likely to see a lot of BIPs around AML/KYC support, e.g.
adding personal identity information to transactions, blacklist standards, =
etc.
Should we accept those BIPs into the bips repo?

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXa9lVAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yb9oH/iHf9I6IGVxT53QxXsMUHpBA
74bZhAxplMwbQ1jwBFqDfXjXJD4x6FcpHzKSiW+JV0fbICTCbTgoIs6zGb5MQRlH
lK1jWLctctjCEfb4QF2H8L7NP4+ihBLx3FuCPztYYkPthgzlM6SFU8peKHP+DLqk
kMup97wJPVxd/RXi0WVgKxOWco3quQVPdhZgfNbGW0uG9qWjgQ6iTxymYGsUTeOI
hrDbu9WtM7HmhmphIMtQjPyUpkciNFFKO6dgGxzbHtgPgvFOvdHDZHcWG+ONlW4K
A/r2naPl2iz/nNP3ontMsjkeD6GLAaS+qRVbpgwBffB7NbeyZZwQYRliTfiTJ2c=
=S/uQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--