Delete BIP-119 #1561

pull JeremyRubin wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from JeremyRubin:delete-119 changing 13 files +0 −3332
  1. JeremyRubin commented at 5:51 pm on April 2, 2024: contributor

    Given the BIP repository’s apparent discontinuation as the appropriate venue for documents of this type, I respectfully propose the deletion of CTV’s BIP through this PR’s approval. It may be reconsidered for addition once the BIP repository is under active management again.

    The intention is not to suggest that CTV is no longer under consideration; rather, it’s to acknowledge that CTV remains a candidate for consideration, just as other proposals such as CAT, CSFS, IKEY, Ephemeral Anchors, 64-bit arithmetic, TXHASH, Taproot Assets, Ordinals, etc are for consideration with neither a BIP number assigned nor have their drafts merged and indexed in the BIPs repository.

    I believe that CTV should not receive any special treatment by having a BIP assigned to it, as it can be evaluated on its own merits alongside these other proposals, or these other documents should also be admitted into the BIP process.

  2. Remove BIP 119 131787986f
  3. cbspears commented at 5:53 pm on April 2, 2024: none
    ACK.
  4. RandyMcMillan commented at 6:04 pm on April 2, 2024: contributor

    NACK

    Simply mark the status as withdrawn?

  5. jlopp commented at 6:05 pm on April 2, 2024: contributor

    NACK.

    As Satoshi Nakamoto would say: “Why delete a BIP instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a BIP.”

  6. 1440000bytes commented at 6:15 pm on April 2, 2024: none

    I think we should nuke BIP 2 first

    Context: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/cuMZ77KEQAA/m/LicFDYRRAAAJ

  7. Zero-1729 commented at 6:37 pm on April 2, 2024: none

    NACK

    No need for the double effort of taking out and re-including.

  8. nerd2ninja commented at 6:41 pm on April 2, 2024: none

    NACK.

    In spite of the fact that the community at large has not decided they want to soft fork in BIP-119 at the time of writing, removing this BIP does not benefit the community at large either. I’ve heard a few people say that we should be able to evaluate code on its merits in spite of its author’s personality. That’s something I’d like to be on the side of, but things like this complicate the ability to defend that position.

    If this code is not tied to the entirety of your ideas and opinions and stands on its own with its own merits as I believe it does, then this PR to remove it holds no weight.

  9. ProofOfKeags commented at 10:02 pm on April 2, 2024: contributor

    NACK

    BIP119, while not universally supported and while there isn’t a current plan for activation, it is still widely supported and withdrawing it in this manner does the whole Bitcoin community a disservice.

    As I understand it, the problem that this PR solves would be that it would no longer be in conflict with the guidelines set forth in the process outlined in BIP2. I would rather see BIP2’s guidelines be updated to allow documents of this type to remain in scope for community consideration.

  10. JeremyRubin commented at 12:56 pm on April 3, 2024: contributor

    The intention is not to suggest that CTV is no longer under consideration; rather, it’s to acknowledge that CTV remains a candidate for consideration, just as other proposals such as CAT, CSFS, IKEY, Ephemeral Anchors, 64-bit arithmetic, TXHASH, Taproot Assets, Ordinals, etc are for consideration with neither a BIP number assigned nor have their drafts merged and indexed in the BIPs repository.

    I believe that CTV should not receive any special treatment by having a BIP assigned to it, as it can be evaluated on its own merits alongside these other proposals, or these other documents should also be admitted into the BIP process.

  11. gijswijs commented at 3:21 pm on April 3, 2024: none
    NACK This repository should remain the appropriate venue for documents of this type. If there are other BIPs, such as BIP2, that prevent this from being the case due to conflicting wording or other reasons, I propose that we address those issues.
  12. JeremyRubin commented at 6:40 pm on April 3, 2024: contributor
    What is the exact conflict with BIP-002 and the current BIP? I didn’t follow that.
  13. 1440000bytes commented at 10:00 am on April 4, 2024: none

    What is the exact conflict with BIP-002 and the current BIP? I didn’t follow that.

    BIP 2 can be simplified and BIP editors role would be to check basic things, assign number and merge pull request.

    This would fix all the problems.

  14. in README.mediawiki:632 in 131787986f 
    627-| [[bip-0119.mediawiki|119]]
628-| Consensus (soft fork)
629-| CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY
630-| Jeremy Rubin, James O'Beirne
631-| Standard
632-| Draft
    ben221199 commented at 6:32 pm on April 5, 2024:
    Don’t remove. Rather use Withdrawn.
    JeremyRubin commented at 3:23 am on April 9, 2024:
    I do not wish to withdraw it
    ben221199 commented at 7:47 am on April 9, 2024:
    What is your purpose then? If a BIP is in Draft state and it will be cancelled, it will be Withdrawn.
  15. ben221199 changes_requested
  16. katesalazar commented at 5:01 pm on April 23, 2024: contributor

    bitcoin/bips is implicitly append-only by process NAK

    On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:53 PM Jeremy Rubin @.***> wrote:

    Given the BIP repository’s apparent discontinuation as the appropriate venue for documents of this type, I respectfully propose the deletion of CTV’s BIP through this PR’s approval. It may be reconsidered for addition once the BIP repository is under active management again.

    You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

    #1561 Commit Summary

    File Changes

    (13 files https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1561/files)

    Patch Links:

    — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1561, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMRS4W26W4ZCVOAJPETSWOLY3LV7ZAVCNFSM6AAAAABFT2XB3KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGIZDCMBZGY3TQMI . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

  17. jonatack commented at 6:04 pm on April 23, 2024: contributor

    (1) The review feedback here is overwhelmingly negative, with more than a half dozen NACKs.

    these other documents should also be admitted into the BIP process.

    (2) Several new editors are being onboarded with the goal of moving things forward, and the open BIP proposals will be checked soon if they satisfy the criteria for inclusion and guided forward.

    Given (1) and (2), @JeremyRubin would you mind closing this pull for now and re-evaluating a little later if you feel things haven’t progressed.

  18. JeremyRubin commented at 7:40 pm on April 23, 2024: contributor
    I’d be happy to. Good luck and godspeed.
  19. JeremyRubin closed this on Apr 23, 2024
  20. 1440000bytes commented at 2:13 am on April 24, 2024: none

    The review feedback here is overwhelmingly negative, with more than a half dozen NACKs.

    Just wanted to mention that BIPs don’t need ACK or NACK from reviewers based on my understanding.


JeremyRubin cbspears RandyMcMillan jlopp 1440000bytes Zero-1729 nerd2ninja ProofOfKeags gijswijs ben221199 katesalazar jonatack

github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bips. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2025-05-24 00:10 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me