Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-04 📝 Original message:On Friday, September 04, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-04
📝 Original message:On Friday, September 04, 2015 5:48:48 PM Justus Ranvier wrote:
> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non-
> >
> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository:
> > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/
>
> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to
> that company in particular?
Feel free to create a company-independent repository instead.
Although I don't think SLIPs are intended to be biased toward their company.
> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of
> purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a
> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit.
This is not Bitcoin's problem... Polluting the BIP repository with N non-
Bitcoin related specifications would be.
Luke
📝 Original message:On Friday, September 04, 2015 5:48:48 PM Justus Ranvier wrote:
> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non-
> >
> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository:
> > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/
>
> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to
> that company in particular?
Feel free to create a company-independent repository instead.
Although I don't think SLIPs are intended to be biased toward their company.
> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of
> purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a
> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit.
This is not Bitcoin's problem... Polluting the BIP repository with N non-
Bitcoin related specifications would be.
Luke