rich1.0npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuhttps://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcunjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2021-04-25 📝 Original message:On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote: >> If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the >> author's approval (which appears to be occurring here), > > It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to > them all in due time, likely before the end of the month. Please don't play dumb, it isn't a good look. > Rather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the > BIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or > that the preexisting Core+Taproot client is "breaking" the spec. And to > further their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special > treatment. I'd be curious who is doing that, because obviously I'd agree that merging something in a BIP doesn't really have any special meaning. This, however, is a completely different topic from following the BIP process that you had a key hand in crafting. > I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment, > and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP > process. Again, please don't play dumb, no one watching believes this - you've been active on the BIP repo on numerous PRs and this has never in the past been the case. > Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to > (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST > advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing" (to > use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under > their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin > Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus). > > Luke >