What does HackerNews think of bips?

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals

Language: Wikitext

> Unethical nonsense.

You can propose changes to the network at any time via a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) [1], so sorry, but you're just wrong. Bitcoin is the most ethical form of money that has ever existed.

> "All landowners get a vote according to the amount of land they own. Work for scraps you peasant."

This is an impressive contortion of reality, but nonetheless completely wrong. Your "voting" ability has nothing to do with participation in mining. Your vote is participation in the network, open ability to submit proposals, run a node to bolster the network, and if you wish, run a mining rig to validate blocks and earn Bitcoin. You can also earn Bitcoin from others directly providing products and services.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

I am interested in learning what bitcoin regulations you would find useful. And have you submitted any BIPs for your ideas? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
Are you looking for technical papers on how they work or practical blog posts on what you can do with them?

For both Bitcoin and Etherium the original white papers do not paint a full picture of the state of each cryptocurrency. Here are a few links I recently read on both BTC and ETH:

Bitcoin Wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page

Bitcoin BIPs: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

Etherium Website: https://ethereum.org/ (it has a lot of information spread all over it)

ETH2 Beacon Chain Blog Post: https://ethos.dev/beacon-chain/

There's a lot more literature that you can find via Google but it's spread out all over the place.

> The community killed scripting because it was antithetical to the thing that makes money in BTC: trust. The constant flow of n00bs coming in who got their transactions reversed by OP codes and said "BUT I THOUGHT BITCOIN TRANSACTIONS WERE IRREVERSIBLE!!?!?!!?!?!1111" was eroding trust in the ecosystem.

I never heard of all of this having happened. To my knowledge Bitcoin's scripting language was not trimmed, it was in fact extended over the years by various BIPs [1].

What's your source for these statements?

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

«Bitcoin does not»

This statement betrays you have not paid attention to the numerous improvements made to the Bitcoin infrastructure over the last 11 years: wallets, nodes, exchanges, payment processors, vaults, blockchain upgrades, basically all the BIPs https://github.com/bitcoin/bips : segwit, P2SH, lightning, M-of-N keys, deterministic wallets, etc. Using Bitcoin in 2020 is nothing at all like it was in 2009.

I'm thinking what would be the purpose or added value of a separate "public spec" document (which would require a significant maintenance effort) when you already have [1] a healthy Github (or Gitlab) project governance going on, [2] Bitcoin feature proposal process.

  [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects
  [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
When you upgrade your Bitcoin node software, the act of the upgrading is you casting your Yes vote for the changes introduced in that version. The BIPs etc. can help you understand these, but if you want to be 100% diligent, the only fully authoritative source is the state of (the code sources in) the git repo as referenced by the commit hash in the Bitcoin software you are upgrading to.
I have the same thought running through my head while perusing each Rust announcement. Python has the Python Enhancement Proposal[1], and Bitcoin has their Bitcoin Improvement Proposal[2]. On the flip side, this does have the side effect of forcing me to click through to each Rust RFC linked in the announcements just to be sure.

[1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/

[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips