Skip to content

Reject 116 (expired) #1007

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Reject 116 (expired) #1007

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ysangkok
Copy link
Contributor

Expired and superseded by Taproot. @kallewoof @btcdrak @maaku

@maaku
Copy link
Contributor

maaku commented Oct 12, 2020

Proposal is still relevant as (1) there are use cases which cannot be adequately represented using the fixed-format MAST structure of Taproot, and (2) it provides a quantum-resistant MAST functionality.

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Oct 12, 2020

I agree this is not superseded by BIP341.

@michaelfolkson
Copy link

michaelfolkson commented Nov 16, 2020

As not superseded by BIP341 rejecting this is a NACK from me. We shouldn't get in the habit of rejecting BIPs just because three years have passed since drafting.

(Waiting on #1016 to clarify rejection rules though.)

@ysangkok
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelfolkson the habit of rejecting BIPs just because three years have passed is the current policy, and dozens of BIPs have been rejected for that already. Saying that we shouldn't follow current policy doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting we adopt BIP-0002 changes before there is consensus?

@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor

@michaelfolkson the habit of rejecting BIPs just because three years have passed is the current policy, and dozens of BIPs have been rejected for that already. Saying that we shouldn't follow current policy doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting we adopt BIP-0002 changes before there is consensus?

Once #1016 has been merged, I plan to propose undoing all those rejections, FWIW.

@ysangkok
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kallewoof Now that you're getting the commit bit, no need to propose it, you can just do it.

@ysangkok ysangkok closed this Apr 23, 2021
@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor

For the record, I have no intention of merging any of my own pull requests, unless they've been acknowledged by their respective authors, and there is a clear lack of controversy.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants