It's newly launched, we're looking to collect more

Don’t put words in my mouth. I said your behavior is toxic. I stand by that. For the past years the majority of your emails and GitHub comments I have seen were at least one of unnecessarily verbose, incomprehensible, off-topic, or unhelpful, and frequently contained a gratuitous helping of conspiracy theories and laughable legal babble. You have been banned from contributing to at least four projects and one forum for harassing or insulting people, or other disruptive behavior.

I have mostly stopped reading your emails and comments unless you are responding to me directly as their signal to noise ratio has been approaching zero. If I have to read one, I ask ChatGPT for a summary. You know better than most how little Alex and Suhas instruct Chaincode employees. If you want to find the party responsible for the perception other contributors have of you, check a friggin’ mirror.

Please see #955120 or the explanation by the moderator that took action: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/17

It is misleading to imply that this ban is chiefly related to review of OP_CTV.

There has been a history of ariard posting off-topic and otherwise disruptive comments in several Bitcoin projects’ repositories over the past years that have previously led to bans by several organizations. Most recently, ariard has been making off-topic on BIPs pull requests. Requests to stick to the proposals at hand and to limit himself to constructive contributions prompted further meandering comments about unrelated topics containing insults and legal threats by ariard. ariard’s on-going disruptive and unwanted contributions have prompted requests for moderation action by several contributors recently. The situation was starting to incur a toll on other contributors time. To curb the disruption he was banned from the repositories of the bitcoin organization (notably including the Bitcoin Core code base and the BIPs repository).

Obviously, constructive contributions would be welcome, and he is welcome to make security disclosures through the appropriate channels any time. A more detailed explanation by the moderator that took action can be found in the bitcoin-core/meta repository.

See https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/17

It’s not. How do quantum computers benefit the Bitcoin network? Why should Bitcoin subsidize development of quantum computers?

Given that the main difference I’m pointing out is about whether the instigator benefits, I think your example makes my point exactly: either way you are out of your coins, but it adds insult to injury if someone else undeservedly gains them.

I was having a similar issue and recently started charging my phone in the living room at night—it helped a lot.

Isn’t there a distinction to be made between coins being confiscated and coins being burned?

I’m surprised that the majority is voting for letting the attacker have the coins. What’s the benefit of letting some QC pioneer have several million bitcoin?

If the choice were between the coins being misappropriated or burned, wouldn’t you rather have your coins be lost than a thief benefiting?

The best way to link to BIP 3 would be to link to the version in the master branch: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md

There are also two pull requests for changes open right now.

Thanks @Car!

Thanks, I should have linked to it in my OP!

Are you aware of a study or test program that showed an adverse outcome or are you talking about economists in theory not being able to wrap their head around most people wanting to do something with their lives? ;)

Why is that surprising?

UBI experiments and pilot programs have shown the same results time and again: recipients of UBI use the improved agency to negotiate better employment situations, improve their education, more often take the risk of becoming entrepreneurs, build up savings, deal better with emergencies, spend more on supporting their loved ones, have healthier offspring, are mentally and physically more healthy, and generally happier.

Maybe scroll a bit, read some of the sources if it tickles you: https://bsky.app/profile/scottsantens.com/post/3lckzcleo7s24

Oh, I went through about ten terms instead of "Authors" to try and cover the range of authorship, ownership, and advocacy of people being responsible for BIP without implying that they necessarily were part of the people that wrote the document, only to end up using Authors again in the end, because each and everyone got picked apart.

Oops, sorry, I didn’t realize that I was supposed to announce it in advance. It was more of a spontaneous thing after watching the Q&A of Jon’s talk.

No worries, I’m still taking questions, and you can read the entire conversations presumably by Tuesday or so.

I’m not sure I correctly understand your question, but AFAIU, each BIP 39 wordlist has exactly 2048 words. While there are a few that have been standardized for other languages, the BIP’s authors only feel responsible for and recommend the English one.

I was pretty surprised that some people were generally opposed to BIPs being closed. Most people like the reduction of Status field values, but some reviewers felt that it would be less useful. Several people didn’t agree at first about the introduction of the Specification type.

I spend a lot of time on attempts trying to define the scope of the BIPs repository and found it infeasible. There are a number of things that I find obviously off-topic, and a number that are clearly on-topic, but trying to definitely characterize what is in and what is out eluded me.