Published on: 2012-01-29T23:10:30+00:00
In a discussion on Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), there was a disagreement about the status of BIP 20. Amir Taaki argued that BIP 20 was not accepted as final a year ago, despite Luke Dashjr's assertion to the contrary. Taaki claimed that a BIP needs to go through formalized motions in public before becoming accepted and that the URI Scheme, which BIP 20 is based on, did not go through these motions. He also mentioned that at least two implementations have objected to the standard as it is. Taaki stated that he did not know it was even accepted and invited others to submit a competing BIP to Luke's BIP 20.Matt Corallo, who was part of the discussion, agreed with Luke and pointed out that the version that was agreed upon can be seen on the Bitcoin Wiki page. He also provided links to three biased polls conducted by Luke on the Bitcointalk forum for further reference.The discussion revolved around whether BIP 20 was accepted as final a year ago. While Luke Dashjr argued that there was a consensus and multiple implementations for BIP 20 in early 2011, Amir Taaki disagreed, stating that it did not go through the proper procedures and lacked consensus-building. Taaki believed that no BIP existed before the formalized BIP process, and new BIPs are always in draft status until they meet the conditions specified in BIP 0001.Despite their disagreement, both Dashjr and Taaki agreed that it is important to focus on actual forward progress. They acknowledged that anyone can submit a competing BIP to supersede BIP 20, similar to what happened with BIP 16 and 17. The discussion highlighted conflicting views on the acceptance and status of BIP 20 and emphasized the importance of following the proper procedures in the BIP process.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T02:55:40.884994+00:00