rich1.0npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2021-04-25 📝 Original message: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. 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 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. 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