{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:16:48PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, \"Peter Todd\" \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control;\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e question now is what editorial policies should we exert?\n\u003e \n\u003e No, I do not. I am saying that some degree of editorial control will\n\u003e inevitably exist, simply because there is some human making the choice of\n\u003e assigning a BIP number and merging. My opinion is that we should try to\n\u003e restrict that editorial control to only be subject to objective process,\n\u003e and not be dependent on personal opinions.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on\n\u003e \u003e ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't\n\u003e troll\n\u003e \u003e and call that \"advocating censorship\"\n\u003e \n\u003e I think that you are free to express dislike of BIP75. Suggesting to remove\n\u003e it for that reason is utterly ridiculous to me, whatever you want to call\n\u003e it.\n\nIn the future we're likely to see a lot of BIPs around AML/KYC support, e.g.\nadding personal identity information to transactions, blacklist standards, etc.\nShould we accept those BIPs into the bips repo?\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160623/363edf91/attachment.sig\u003e"}