Author: Prayank 2021-10-06 04:02:55
Published on: 2021-10-06T04:02:55+00:00
The BIP process meeting was discussed in a message where the issue of having an Ethereum-style bewildering number of BIPs of varying quality was mentioned. The option of storing a BIP in any repo doesn't appear to offer material upside, as it still needs to get a BIP number from the BIP editors and if the alternative repo is deleted or the BIP champion becomes unresponsive there is the problem of changing the location of where the BIP is stored. It is much easier to monitor a single repo rather than an infinite number of repos that contain BIPs. The writer expressed his desire to avoid mentioning projects that are not decentralized and stated that the thing mentioned was a feature, not a bug. People are free to propose anything as an improvement for Bitcoin, but what gets implemented is a different thing. The BIP number doesn't make something legit, and BIPs can have any name. In addition, few influential developers who wanted to improve the BIP process earlier by making it more decentralized were not present at the meeting, and there has been no follow-up on the mailing list. It was also noted that decentralization was only required when there were issues with Luke Dashjr. Efforts were made to increase participation in the meeting, including tweeting and requesting Christopher's attendance.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T02:32:20.783365+00:00