Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at ...

📅 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>;