From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:04:13 -0700 Received: from mail-oa1-f59.google.com ([209.85.160.59]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wUBg5-0005oJ-33 for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:04:13 -0700 Received: by mail-oa1-f59.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43d1e4bca47sf925960fac.3 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:04:12 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1780355047; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=EyTGNFX8A4hmIJAQ/ZQ1NwhSnT+hb2CS4T8ccZPnyqBG5/TuoYnhmRge5GZStbqan/ dc0hru0/lhu8Zbjr2aHzqgzcqMFE6z7jbPY1CLoI15eJGXiif4cAlklPFMxhHbPqVXxt 9/24T24ejB9kHBPmzbofAQE33sWIas/wZUXGGNA2l8JcbWKo26sEViYBWkvOwYrR7r+O WexD/ZvDLISqdgPfGcc0A49vAwqEQ/6n6rero0S5U5hhJL18/nMrdI7iUCobL5h+Xs4B 87XeYel4HBsWcP6DMYUIGVwUEK3c6/9JtGCiMKeyRs6WVL7DmMCPtJSM8yjF1+ANk9EH 8zLQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:from:content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:sender:dkim-signature; bh=80mzPPrmcdhEBcwKDPM/jQzxC/owAYYo4W+SP9qe/c0=; fh=n2CvhcstjLN18IPHss7io0PWBTWZF3CzKw/oXdnJD0s=; b=bi6ayLtEpM4a7ILUWAahvh2nZnu6pLxQH3mYGKBsxvdv0YRJ8Ywzz/RXn15Mzrocwl 98ZkO71vwN0/A4Nw/Ihc8uKHNK7nGD40cYiukvYXXED2PaiAP+kLvqbZj7blQNSmQTHH DjokYsR3Pb8WEO18FC8h4tJnJ/a8kL6icCTrV64/RuMmsv9cUh1baU2wPGu22YjPCANh OUSZv6X7bProcLLdRmJdTDAPHnWnQbafAhKGU570pt1mITSaqaHEfzpuFLqZQc+qEgQ1 kOBfqeOgabZ6ml/e3hu6zI/hZaAUpaA3HhOpa08KISZz+tw1Q6i4RN7W33Wx3HRV8rID 6RQw==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@murch.one header.s=uberspace header.b=e5bALzjT; spf=pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=murch@murch.one DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20251104; t=1780355047; x=1780959847; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=80mzPPrmcdhEBcwKDPM/jQzxC/owAYYo4W+SP9qe/c0=; b=E0xQYaZ9hiIoVlnimBHlXUgKmT5dHehPWkchEwLtNJb3gmWZxvTo1wk4D40OiERxg4 vjA5dY4XxnfNP0Rpgbp2yCZ85k3QI8ky8a6iGe5VN03fZBSZM+ARRHnMoJy29PBdfWiD xRAlBffEMn5yEyKHBBQWrkM4pKrjSJIlhloXjA6a1HsIpIh2tulox1YuqD8LaPrXODSb uoBJCSkh9Vpo+dGvFbpp8cB/mx2jmfGyUsVh78zdCopAi+ZS2e/hWnWOHFrNRg5Zt5hs OK7Olq11aQtOtAcOSo4dAm/11tnWsLhVSn3crf7AMnssIBhhLuvPsdKe7CaSDcfONnB/ IgeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1780355047; x=1780959847; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=80mzPPrmcdhEBcwKDPM/jQzxC/owAYYo4W+SP9qe/c0=; b=VVabEqffKLDLCRJMoQv5/RXtzQ2GJbpfXw2NLBBlv16PWPH1htohPmMp07gm9LB8kJ Q3bEcOINliVTM2l+zvuwDPqORCmKFCyXBSnyIDOclGxH5LCkxqVPHckvf14batom6Y70 bl7gkQik87jk72SwoJdLv43W09g+U27UhRhWeOjJOSwbum3Hvc3Uo/EE70b/lh5IoSAI 9W56Xtx7LcJkQC7FGEbjah/cgRFoukqf19+LoCsjNKxjr2A7phKJNWoOrpBJ0TLyg3Ld EY88+s8g0IYG/apY3+irxhXt+vAihYqI/P7MO6pAFhsFm6lMvs2U4y6d/ezB3AsPejVZ NbBA== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AFNElJ+gw1BLYwiPNxF2tLgZPrFM4R+SOeihZubQ3zxO7xuTJQiX5vKQL/OT7ouBjTXhCt7nYubnvnXIPu+t@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzmXXiiSmQD/qx3cK5Ny4TGEb4QP7G5s7EyK/P3mxd/W2I2A1v5 dJv+irkJgitIFWhRenXMu0XEo48/Epk2arIlEnil4bpNFtJiXc6GFZ9I X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:c182:b0:43b:c024:e8c9 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43ca42a2276mr7606178fac.24.1780355046713; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:04:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="AUV6zMPySusTmZ6kOz2eu7lNaU4eWpt3ZdV6mtV1GN52FXETSg==" Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3041:b0:43d:16cf:84ea with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-43d16cff283ls525046fac.1.-pod-prod-06-us; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:04:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1687:b0:45e:a592:5903 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-485fb4a8160mr7175842b6e.32.1780355040427; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:6402:3718:b0:670:416a:5ab4 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-68ce1bb1335msa12; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 15:54:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:934a:b0:bc6:7238:bd4e with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-beab323868amr688812866b.5.1780354479131; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 15:54:39 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1780354479; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=aVz3qmtz0GX+6gzQPx1euDqXGMrlyxiMinK/SXPgPCjv3NrhAqQzFNXXLI6MqBkINK rM/O3abHjWcIUh0v6vsUtwwfNwKdHPhClzMOn0cXQmmIBaSEcgGsdvp7e2tHe5ZeRrNz +6erWyincN7UTLhDlzrhbo1ZHQWpdWHKH+hf04GPRSxgPUWrTjkU5jEsVbWHuEGzO6k4 owGDy146X8NXncaGWomVGCdlO4xYL76Yxiku7BVP7wv9vBXmwh42M/cfzFIly1zF84QX 0hQessq0X2bpaPtfKgYv/dbZ8yzQuST20psxCEeaIIsTcJiqsaluzHyDLuhoHSZcr1mU zVPQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=dkim-signature:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id; bh=wELGUJERvM4FMC2M3tLfNTffoeNxPUFZwIlMJ2JWCyw=; fh=VcGcg+Zjs9gw1uDcHbxsAILhBAcecnbJzZRdxgKVDIc=; b=QUHGPneXRgwSMzLd4qOaiYokAvUlPY2gBvZegqudWHlWXawuliy+ctFlqlMYsQdcLe 1GDVijp+efdxOkjDJ56D5EwLdOMVLMxLnzBGg/CRTYid0CusuF546zW+QTiRMgQ5KhQc H8c13e96rsfr+hymwVWR06IWiW+WDx4Pj27ovnnyw3RMQ+6s6T8U9ZUVMykiXChQhett HQHfMv1xp7mHnxxqzNkACAK/LHeRsII476czZi5yeuBVf0rqkvKSIWzXDEiVeB+HCkMV fCOkhIKFSTkrqNpwPuGmuxe7ESPM35LAPEYJBMkW9wskUhV8GlM9Bj/cAs6wTk8mMrim LSWA==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@murch.one header.s=uberspace header.b=e5bALzjT; spf=pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=murch@murch.one Received: from mailgate02.uberspace.is (mailgate02.uberspace.is. [2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a640c23a62f3a-be9d4fc28f8si27555666b.2.2026.06.01.15.54.39 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Jun 2026 15:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4; Received: from farbauti.uberspace.de (farbauti.uberspace.de [185.26.156.235]) by mailgate02.uberspace.is (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D551C180196 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:54:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18415 invoked by uid 989); 1 Jun 2026 22:54:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO unknown) (::1) by farbauti.uberspace.de (Haraka/3.1.1) with ESMTPSA; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:54:38 +0200 Message-ID: <06d94f73-eb1e-4072-8135-81f8d38260b9@murch.one> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 15:54:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] BIP 3 and issues on BIPs To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com References: Content-Language: en-US From: Murch In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Bar: --- X-Rspamd-Report: MIME_GOOD(-0.1) BAYES_HAM(-2.999997) XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01) X-Rspamd-Score: -3.089997 X-Original-Sender: murch@murch.one X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@murch.one header.s=uberspace header.b=e5bALzjT; spf=pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 2a00:d0c0:200:0:1c7b:a6ff:fee0:8ea4 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=murch@murch.one Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) I meant to, but forgot to reply to the the =E2=80=9CDraft BIPs record open= =20 issues=E2=80=9D part: I double-checked and realized that I have to retract that. While there=20 are a number of hits on =E2=80=9Ctodo=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Ctbd=E2=80=9D ac= ross the published BIPs,=20 those almost exclusively refer to deferred test vectors, reference=20 implementations, or activation parameters. There are just a few=20 references to other things, mostly some data to be backfilled in=20 Rationale or similar. Maybe I had seen some of that in unpublished BIPs,=20 but you were right that open issues are not recorded in the manner that=20 you suggested. -Murch On 2026-06-01 14:24, Murch wrote: > Hi AJ, >=20 > I get the concern that in the case of the BIP Owners disagreeing with=20 > critics about a raised issue or whether it has been addressed=20 > satisfactorily, the issue may not be recorded in a manner that the=20 > critics would consider comprehensive. >=20 > Maybe directly starting with the summaries would work better than=20 > gathering comments from random people, but given the low participation=20 > in the repository I=E2=80=99m still not convinced that there would be=20 > significant interest in contributing to these summaries. So, I=E2=80=99m = still=20 > convinced that it would most likely become an additional burden for the= =20 > BIP Editors to collect, curate, and referee these submissions, and would= =20 > probably still be slanted to the opinions of a few active participants=20 > like in the prior system. >=20 > I agree that needing to dig through so many different sources sucks and= =20 > a better system would be better. I=E2=80=99m not sure that just having th= e BIP=20 > Editors curate submissions is enough. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m gonna mull more on this and would be curious what others have= to say. >=20 > Murch >=20 > On 2026-05-31 00:12, Anthony Towns wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:28:49AM -0700, Murch wrote: >>> BIP3 >>> already recommends that the Rationale should record relevant=20 >>> objections or >>> important concerns that were raised and addressed as this proposal was >>> developed. >> >> Right, I'm particularly referring to issues that aren't (sufficiently) >> addressed here. >> >> If it helps, consider the user story: "As a BIP author, if there's a >> problem/concern with my (draft) BIP that I don't currently know how >> to address (or perhaps don't currently have time to address), how >> should I track that concern and ensure that it's known to potential >> collaborators/implementers?" >> >> My previous best answer for APO was "file an issue against >> bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin" which doesn't feel very satisfactory. >> >>> Open issues are also already often recorded in Draft BIPs. >> >> Can you point to some examples? That sounds like a match for what I was >> thinking. ("git grep -i open.issue" in the master branch has no hits, >> afaics) >> >>> We now >>> allow linking to multiple relevant discussions=E2=80=94new threads shou= ld be=20 >>> added >>> as a document matures. In an ideal world this would already cover at=20 >>> least >>> the first two classes of feedback. >> >> I think there probably should be a second space for issues that the >> author disputes; that may happen due to the criticisms being invalid, >> or the author being unreasonable -- having a third party being able to >> make a "yeah, this is a reasonable thing for people to be aware of" >> without compromising the "BIPs are owned by their authors" principle >> would be valuable. >> >>> In principle I am open to the idea to collect a summary of the=20 >>> discussion >>> and dissent in a dedicated space, but there was hardly any commentary= =20 >>> even >>> when anyone could post it without any friction. >> >> =C2=A0From my perspective, the comments wiki wasn't valuable for either >> summaries (it just contains random people's hot-takes on the topic) or >> for discussion (there's not a wide range of people responding to issues)= . >> So the friction there is just "reading/commenting is a complete waste >> of time". >> >> A list of open issues that the author agrees are worth paying=20 >> attention to >> in their own BIP would be worth paying attention to, I think, except for >> the "oh, the game theory optimal approach is to reject all open issues; >> that way more people will think my BIP is perfect" flaw. >> >>> Why should we expect this >>> more arduous approach to have more adoption than the comment system? My >>> expectation would be that going via pull requests and curation would no= t >>> create more commentary, but the same amount of commentary would increas= e >>> work and decision making for the BIP Editors, especially if the=20 >>> expectation >>> is that BIP Editors collect such feedback for BIPs when the authors or >>> dissenters do not submit it. >> >> I think the purpose would be to summarise commentary, not generate it.= =20 >> For >> example, if you wanted to know "what are the concerns people have with >> BIP 119 so I can judge them for myself", how would you get that answer? >> Or, if you asked an AI, how would it generate a good answer? I think >> the only real approach is to scour the archives of this list, delving, >> optech, various pull requests, and maybe also IRC logs or twitter debate= s >> or podcast or talk transcripts? >> >>>> I think this would be a substantial improvement on the state of the ar= t >>>> for things like BIP 39 and its "Unanimously discourage for=20 >>>> implementation" >>>> criticisms,[=E2=80=A6] >>> This issue has already been addressed. When BIP3 was deployed, I=20 >>> removed all >>> Comment URL headers that linked to empty wikis, and only left those=20 >>> that had >>> content.=C2=A0BIP3 empowers=C2=B9 BIP Owners to decide whether to remov= e or keep >>> Comment Summary and Comment URL from their BIPs. To be fair, this >>> information may need to be spread more broadly. >> >> Hmm, filed as https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2184 maybe. >> >>>> [=E2=80=A6] or, eg, creating issues against bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoi= n [0],=20 >>>> or commenting on old, closed PRs [1]. >>> The latter was my mistake. I should have just emailed BIP authors=20 >>> directly >>> instead of commenting on the ancient PRs that submitted the=20 >>> corresponding >>> documents, or opened up a PR to propose the changes to get the authors= =E2=80=99 >>> input on them. >> >> That wasn't meant as a criticism; just trying to figure out something >> better to do in future. >> >> Cheers, >> aj >> >=20 --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= 06d94f73-eb1e-4072-8135-81f8d38260b9%40murch.one.