The discussion on Bitcoin ordinals highlights their design to ensure on-chain data persistence, which leads to fuller blocks and raises concerns about space competition between regular transactions and data embedding.
A proposed technical solution suggests hiding ordinals behind an R-value in the witness part of a transaction input, which would reduce their size and cost while maintaining cryptographic proof and allowing for uncensorable inclusion in different types of addresses.
The role of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) is examined with the suggestion that they should focus on crucial protocol elements to preserve the integrity and functionality of Bitcoin. A minimalist approach is recommended to avoid overloading developers with non-essential features. Concerns are raised regarding the impartiality of BIP editors and the application of BIP 2 requirements, suggesting potential bias against proposals like ordinals. The conversation also explores the idea of listing BIPs not maintained in the official repository to challenge centralized management.
Debate surrounds the assignment and management of BIP numbers, with a proposal to automate this process using pull request numbers to address concerns about gatekeeping. This could lead to non-contiguous BIP numbers, but an offset starting at the highest manually assigned number could maintain order. Discussions also consider the subjective nature of terms in BIP 2, the workload of BIP editors, and calls for additional editorial assistance while addressing decentralization issues.
A restrained approach to BIPs is advocated, reserving them for widely-adopted standards and suggesting alternative repositories for non-BIP protocols. Transparency in the evaluation process of improvements is emphasized, as is the need to consider diverse community stakeholders in decision-making. Handling controversial proposals and recognizing the difference between technical documentation and implementation are also noted.
In a specific email, urgency is expressed concerning the progress of a PR for the Ordinals BIP. The sender seeks feedback from BIP editors to understand necessary actions for acceptance, emphasizing the importance of guidance in advancing the proposal's development process. The communication reflects professional persistence and a desire for pivotal editor interaction to facilitate the BIP's progression.