rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: >> On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips >> repository, >> > and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin >> developers >> > to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for >> Tor to >> > add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor >> tactical >> > wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it. >> >> I hope you're not seriously suggesting to censor a BIP because you feel it >> is a bad idea. > > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication > platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by > accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them. We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github is a historical artifact. > I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips > repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere. Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend against its usage. -- Pieter