{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-04-25\n📝 Original message:On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:\n\u003e If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the\n\u003e author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),\n\nIt isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to \nthem all in due time, likely before the end of the month.\n\nRather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the \nBIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or \nthat the preexisting Core+Taproot client is \"breaking\" the spec. And to \nfurther their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special \ntreatment.\n\nI will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment, \nand will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP \nprocess.\n\nDespite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to \n(fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST \nadvocates. It appears they intend to paint me as \"deliberately refusing\" (to \nuse your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under \ntheir control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin \nCore's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus).\n\nLuke"}