Delete BIP-119 #1561
Delete BIP-119 #1561
Conversation
|
ACK. |
|
NACK Simply mark the status as withdrawn? |
|
NACK. As Satoshi Nakamoto would say: “Why delete a BIP instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a BIP.” |
|
I think we should nuke BIP 2 first Context: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/cuMZ77KEQAA/m/LicFDYRRAAAJ |
|
NACK No need for the double effort of taking out and re-including. |
|
NACK. In spite of the fact that the community at large has not decided they want to soft fork in BIP-119 at the time of writing, removing this BIP does not benefit the community at large either. I've heard a few people say that we should be able to evaluate code on its merits in spite of its author's personality. That's something I'd like to be on the side of, but things like this complicate the ability to defend that position. If this code is not tied to the entirety of your ideas and opinions and stands on its own with its own merits as I believe it does, then this PR to remove it holds no weight. |
|
NACK BIP119, while not universally supported and while there isn't a current plan for activation, it is still widely supported and withdrawing it in this manner does the whole Bitcoin community a disservice. As I understand it, the problem that this PR solves would be that it would no longer be in conflict with the guidelines set forth in the process outlined in BIP2. I would rather see BIP2's guidelines be updated to allow documents of this type to remain in scope for community consideration. |
|
The intention is not to suggest that CTV is no longer under consideration; rather, it's to acknowledge that CTV remains a candidate for consideration, just as other proposals such as CAT, CSFS, IKEY, Ephemeral Anchors, 64-bit arithmetic, TXHASH, Taproot Assets, Ordinals, etc are for consideration with neither a BIP number assigned nor have their drafts merged and indexed in the BIPs repository. I believe that CTV should not receive any special treatment by having a BIP assigned to it, as it can be evaluated on its own merits alongside these other proposals, or these other documents should also be admitted into the BIP process. |
|
NACK This repository should remain the appropriate venue for documents of this type. If there are other BIPs, such as BIP2, that prevent this from being the case due to conflicting wording or other reasons, I propose that we address those issues. |
|
What is the exact conflict with BIP-002 and the current BIP? I didn't follow that. |
BIP 2 can be simplified and BIP editors role would be to check basic things, assign number and merge pull request. This would fix all the problems. |
| | CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY | ||
| | Jeremy Rubin, James O'Beirne | ||
| | Standard | ||
| | Draft |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not wish to withdraw it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is your purpose then? If a BIP is in Draft state and it will be cancelled, it will be Withdrawn.
|
(1) The review feedback here is overwhelmingly negative, with more than a half dozen NACKs.
(2) Several new editors are being onboarded with the goal of moving things forward, and the open BIP proposals will be checked soon if they satisfy the criteria for inclusion and guided forward. Given (1) and (2), @JeremyRubin would you mind closing this pull for now and re-evaluating a little later if you feel things haven't progressed. |
|
I'd be happy to. Good luck and godspeed. |
Just wanted to mention that BIPs don't need ACK or NACK from reviewers based on my understanding. |
Given the BIP repository's apparent discontinuation as the appropriate venue for documents of this type, I respectfully propose the deletion of CTV's BIP through this PR's approval. It may be reconsidered for addition once the BIP repository is under active management again.
The intention is not to suggest that CTV is no longer under consideration; rather, it's to acknowledge that CTV remains a candidate for consideration, just as other proposals such as CAT, CSFS, IKEY, Ephemeral Anchors, 64-bit arithmetic, TXHASH, Taproot Assets, Ordinals, etc are for consideration with neither a BIP number assigned nor have their drafts merged and indexed in the BIPs repository.
I believe that CTV should not receive any special treatment by having a BIP assigned to it, as it can be evaluated on its own merits alongside these other proposals, or these other documents should also be admitted into the BIP process.