Removed link and reference to SLIP-0173 #1481

1. 
   dplusplus1024 commented at 5:25 am on July 23, 2023: contributor

   SLIP-0173 is not relevant to BIP173 due to not containing any additional information about bitcoin.
2. Removed link and reference to SLIP-0173

   SLIP-0173 is not relevant to BIP173 due to not containing any additional information about bitcoin.
   
   Co-authored-by: Reese Russell <git@qrsnap.io>

   2478e1abba
3. 
   apoelstra commented at 2:07 pm on July 23, 2023: contributor

   It may be irrelevant to Bitcoin, but it redirects a common request about BIP-173, without needing any action from the BIP maintainer or others here.
4. 
   clarkmoody commented at 1:50 pm on July 24, 2023: contributor

   The SLIPs have been a bulwark against countless altcoin PRs directed at this repository. See SLIP-044 for a prime example.

   -Clark

   On Sun, Jul 23, 2023, 09:08 Andrew Poelstra @.***> wrote:

   It may be irrelevant to Bitcoin, but it redirects a common request about BIP-173, without needing any action from the BIP maintainer or others here.

   — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1481#issuecomment-1646849234, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAL5OMIPSVTS2NX6GW3NOT3XRUV4BANCNFSM6AAAAAA2UJBDWA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

5. 
   dplusplus1024 commented at 9:52 pm on July 24, 2023: contributor

   @apoelstra @clarkmoody Thank you both for responding. It is my perspective that linking these projects may be perceived as an official endorsement for them. However, I can understand the desire to stop needless PRs. The question is, what is more important - preventing PRs or preventing users from being led astray?
6. 
   apoelstra commented at 5:49 pm on July 25, 2023: contributor

   I don’t think it’d be perceived as an “official endorsement”. Perhaps an “official acknowledgement”, but that’s fairly accurate – if we were to add new HRPs in Bitcoin for something, we would check SLIP-173 to avoid colliding, because it’s an easy check and it’s good social grace.
7. 
   murchandamus commented at 6:45 pm on May 1, 2024: contributor

   It sounds to me that the BIP authors declined this proposed change to their BIP.
8. murchandamus closed this on May 1, 2024

   ---

9. murchandamus reopened this on May 1, 2024

   ---

10. 
    murchandamus commented at 6:47 pm on May 1, 2024: contributor

    Oh oops, I got the impression that Andrew and Clark were the authors, but just realized that BIP173 is bech32 of course. Paging @sipa and @gmaxwell.
11. murchandamus assigned sipa on May 8, 2024
12. murchandamus added the label Proposed BIP modification on May 8, 2024
13. murchandamus added the label Pending acceptance on May 8, 2024
14. 5twelve approved

Contributors
dplusplus1024 apoelstra clarkmoody murchandamus 5twelve

Labels
Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance