rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23 📝 Original message: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. For example, I suspect I wouldn't be able to get a BIP for a decentralized assassination market protocol standard into the repository, regardless of whether or not it was used - it's simply too distastful and controversial for us to want to merge that. Would you call that rejection censorship? 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. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160623/6fce728d/attachment.sig>