rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:16:48PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > > > Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; > the > > question now is what editorial policies should we exert? > > No, I do not. I am saying that some degree of editorial control will > inevitably exist, simply because there is some human making the choice of > assigning a BIP number and merging. My opinion is that we should try to > restrict that editorial control to only be subject to objective process, > and not be dependent on personal opinions. > > > My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on > > ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't > troll > > and call that "advocating censorship" > > I think that you are free to express dislike of BIP75. Suggesting to remove > it for that reason is utterly ridiculous to me, whatever you want to call > it. In the future we're likely to see a lot of BIPs around AML/KYC support, e.g. adding personal identity information to transactions, blacklist standards, etc. Should we accept those BIPs into the bips repo? -- 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/20160623/363edf91/attachment.sig>