~
Wandering in the woods is beyond any Bitcoiner. We are not hired by anybody, there is no obligation to follow TODO assignments by BIPs just because they've got some stupid number.
More importantly, your approach compromises the very first line of resistance for Bitcoin: dev resistance.
Wandering in the woods is beyond any Bitcoiner. We are not hired by anybody, there is no obligation to follow TODO assignments by BIPs just because they've got some stupid number.
More importantly, your approach compromises the very first line of resistance for Bitcoin: dev resistance.
I feel, that while this scenario is entirely possible (provided that the adversiary somehow finds people who are willing to code and think*), we are doing a disservice to bitcoin by not making an effort to standardize parts.
*In the age of social media, such people are rare - divide the number of posters in Dev&Tech discussion over the week, by the number of Bitcointalk users online within the last week - you get the idea.
This whole endeavor would've been unnecessary had my BIP just been numbered by luke-jr in the first place, but he didn't, and this is not the thread for me to rant about that. Decisions are decisions, and if the standardization for some part can only be done in a specific way, then I will push in that direction in the name of change (which I feel is infinitely more useful than me making a hundred posts in this thread).
I'm operating as a lone wolf - certainly, almost nobody else on this forum has the technical compretence to even do anything about these drafts (judging by the number of users who replied to this topic in the last 2 weeks). Sure, this implies you have to trust me not to fuck standards up, but I know, that I can definitely trust myself not to screw up, and to me that's all that really matters.
Sure, if delegation is not needed in the first place, somebody on the mailing list can speak up, and that'll be the end of it. But so far the mailing list has been almost radio silence for the past week except for myself. So I, an independent guy unaffiliated with the BIP, have no idea if any of the TODOs are still valid.
So this is the game plan now:
- in the case of delegation, I look up @garlonicon's idea. If that doesn't work out, I've already found a well-known cryptography construct called proxy signatures (Brave search link, only because google's was too long and DuckDuckGo has the search query in the POST data - ignore all results about HTTP proxies), so I make a BIP around that.
-- It will primarily be used by BIP322 if the author(s) can come at a decision about it.
And then I leave the problem alone, since everything is solved - no need for opcodes, Merkle Branches or any of that weird stuff in the other TODOs.
Quote
what you are doing is bad for the resistance, it makes us to look weak and irrelevant, leaving bitcoin defenseless.
Yes, I know about resistance to no-coiners. But in this parliament, there is no seat for them, since the community never elected them here in the first place. Therefore, all of their criticisms and attacks are irrelevant to us. There's a seat for you, there's a seat for me, seats for some of these other guys here, seats for mailing list posters, etc. because the community wants us (collectively) to discuss and find solutions for these matters.
Ultimately, nobody has execution power over BIPs that they did not author. I'm not an exception. I can't "force" anybody to include my suggestions in their own BIPs.