pull down to refresh

1516 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 1 Apr \ parent \ on: Is "Go write a BIP" bad advice? bitcoin
had an understanding that a BIP was anything formatted along the lines suggested by BIP 3, regardless of where it was hosted.

Hmm I wouldn't follow BIP3 per se if I were to make another repo. The process can be different for different repositories. It shouldn't really be about the people; if it is then it is ripe for disruption. I still think achow prevented BIP-repo disruption when calling for editor nominations. I think that that was a great move and I like the outcome.

What is the advantage we gain by having BIPs in a central repo?

Ease of discoverability, reference, prevention of link rot, harmonized process, ease of getting eyes... there are definite benefits to centralization here. But they are not trumping everything and there imho must be a way around it: this repo must never be a binding bureaucracy, nor should delving or the mailing list. It must be there on its own merits. If it sucks or is abused, use something else.

Could a system without a central repository for BIPs work?

Yes. It could be a decentralized set of specs. I think that this was proposed for NIPs?

What's important, imho:

  1. You need your spec to get eyes, and you need it before the first word for your proposal is written down. Before you have a title. Especially before you have developed a preference for an outcome! Call it a workgroup. All the standards development orgs do it like this. It's super important. [1]
  2. Once you have a concept, you want feedback. More eyes. You want to approach people, especially those that you target to implement it if they're not in your group. It sounds all political and it can be, but you need buy-in, and the best buy-in is what you get from someone giving you an awesome review and then you address their concerns. Bitcoin should be professionalized? It starts with not doing god-awful BIP proposals that are posted too early.
  3. You then publish your draft - this is where you open a PR to the BIP repo, or a website, or get a feature in optech, or the mailing list, or... anything... post it on Twitter. Whatever you do tho, do not be a whiny little bitch and post on Twitter how your stuff isn't going to make it due to other people's bias before you did the actual work. That's weak sauce.
  4. Follow the process for the repo you submit to, or whatever other process you specified yourself. It's there for a reason. Listen to comments and take them seriously. Fix things. Go back to the drawing board if you have to. Don't rush. Rushing is what 20yo do because they have nothing to lose. Bitcoin has a lot to lose. And you cannot afford to make people whole. Work hard, breh, work hard.

  1. I've co-developed some open standards and protocols that are in production use globally today. The most useful team size for small protocol enhancements was 3-4 people, and 6-8 for large greenfield work. We'd work about 3 to 18 months on a spec, and then 1-3 months or so to get to a digestible publication. The important part isn't publication, though: it's what you do before that. ↩

write
compose
70 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 1 Apr

As usual, I have lots to learn here. Ease of getting eyes is something that I certainly wasn't considering. In a way, I'd say that Ordinals is an evidence that there is very much a way around the BIPs system: apparently lots of people figured out how to do ordinals things without there ever being a BIP.

In my various disputes with Dathon Ohm, one thing that has frustrated me has been their use of the word "official." I find it very frustrating that Bitcoiners talk about anything in Bitcoin being "officially supported" or "officially implemented" or whatever.

Having a single BIPs repo feels a lot like an "official" BIPs repo. I believe this is what nettles me about it a little.

The response I want to give to folks like Carter or Dathon is that there is: what are you waiting for? Do you expect others to do things for you? Put your proposal out there and convince others to use it.

I suppose they would say this is exactly what they are doing.

I appreciated this by Voskuil:

source

What Carter and Dathon are doing feels like politicking. I don't want Bitcoin to be political money.

reply
103 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 1 Apr
official

I'm allergic to this word. There's no such thing in a consensus network. That's the entire point of consensus by running code: nothing official, only choice. No pre-sorting either because the outcome is per definition up in the air. If you can manipulate it beyond your worth, the system is broken. [1]

What Carter and Dathon are doing feels like politicking. I don't want Bitcoin to be political money.

I 100% agree with this sentiment. Especially since, when one carries real arguments, one gets ignored. Your comment? Didn't exist. I speak from recent experience. Hah.

However, per the note below, I am observing similar politicking elsewhere too. This is important to at least be wary of. It's not just 2 individuals that are vocal on X. There are lots of them, people with actual influence too. We have to keep calling it out, especially when people we want to like do it.

I don't like arguing with maintainers or their close colleagues. I know the shit job they've got. But, I will keep doing it. I'll even try to do it respectfully, which is arguably the hardest part for me because I've grown to like the savage way. But I try.

Voskuil

I have to pace myself in Voskuil admiration sometimes, haha. He often says things I agree with though. Including this quote.

  1. Note: the system may actually be a bit broken. This is the one point I will concede to BCH shitcoiners. Not that their conspiracy theories are correct - they're unlikely to be, in my (informed-ish) opinion - but, there are powerhouses and eventually bitcoiners will need to challenge these if they don't self-destruct. That's also what I like about what Atack is saying - though in that case I again don't like much of the rationale. Can't stay stuck in the Covid trauma. Need to move on. Do shit. Not whine. ↩

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @nitter 1 Apr
reply