Ordinals BIP PR

It suggests that there should be a clear distinction between BIPs that are fundamental to the core protocol and those that are optional or experimental. This would streamline the evaluation process and prevent dilution of important proposals.

The sender expresses their opinion that not every protocol using Bitcoin needs to be documented with a BIP. They believe that BIP assignment should be limited to widely adopted standards used by the entire Bitcoin community for the core mission of Bitcoin. The sender also mentions the Lightning protocol, which is not standardized through the BIP process but has its own separate BOLT process for independence.

Furthermore, the sender disagrees with the recipient's BIP and suggests retracting the proposal or considering alternatives like Outcomes Improvement Proposals (OIPs). They emphasize the importance of focusing on real BIPs that actually improve the cryptocurrency.

The email raises concerns about evaluating BIPs based on implementation rather than specification or consequences for the network. The sender argues that this approach sets a bad precedent and makes the BIP repository difficult to interact with. They express concern about the interpretation of BIP numbers as indicating that proposals are "blessed" by a particular influential set of people.

In conclusion, the email addresses various aspects of the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process, including acceptance criteria, documentation clarity, and the importance of focusing on proposals that genuinely improve the cryptocurrency.