Ordinals BIP PR

The email begins with the sender expressing their belief that adding another editor does not solve the problem discussed in a previous thread. They mention a similar situation where Kalle was added as an editor instead of decentralizing the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process. The sender questions the usefulness of the repository if the personal opinions and biases of BIP editors start affecting the merging of pull requests.

The sender then raises the question of what makes certain actions an attack on bitcoin. They mention that some users want to use their money in a different way and highlight examples such as taproot assets and other standards that aim to achieve similar goals. They also mention that there are existing BIPs in the repository, such as drivechain, BIP 47, and the use of OP_RETURN in colored coins, which some users and developers consider controversial or not improvements. Despite this, these BIPs still exist in the same repository.

The sender suggests removing terms like "philosophy" and "net improvement" from BIP 2 because they can have different meanings for different people. They sign off the email as "/dev/fd0 floppy disk guy" and mention that it was sent using Proton Mail secure email.

In summary, the email discusses the issue of adding another editor not solving the problem at hand and suggests decentralizing the BIP process. It questions what constitutes an attack on bitcoin and mentions various examples of controversial or non-improvement BIPs. The sender proposes removing subjective terms from BIP 2 and signs off with their username and the email platform used.