39: Remove other implementation sections #1576
Conversation
|
This link seems to be 404 as well: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1576/files#diff-e8a8e3ce116f25d8fb0352ab5cf1da3307d3efba56640fd0bd3c029e53a5dbe7R212 (for here or a separate pull) |
|
I agree with the sentiment behind this PR: I don’t think the additional implementations are well-vetted, and it doesn’t make sense to maintain these lists on the BIPs themselves where it burdens the original authors indefinitely. I’m a bit uncomfortable with the BIP editors just deciding this by themselves, though. I would prefer if we at least gave the authors of the affected BIPs a chance to respond given that it is their documents, even if we perceive this to be in their benefit. Generally, I think PRs should only pertain to one BIP, unless the authors of the BIPs match, so it would be better if there were separate PRs for the separate documents. BTW, BIP21 suffers from the same problem: #825. |
achow101
force-pushed
the
stop-link-spam
branch
from
6ffc5a2
to
fd5d424
Compare
achow101
changed the title
|
I've limited this one to just BIP 39 and will open separate PRs for the other BIPs. |
|
Yes, please! ACK |
|
ACK |
Many people open PRs here to add their own implementation of BIP 39 to their "Other Implementations" section. This is fairly noisy, and also places a burden on the BIP's authors to check those PRs. Some of those links also no longer exist. It just seems like people are adding their links to essentially advertise their projects, and it's annoying.
Furthermore, it's not clear to me whether anyone actually reviews the code of those repos. As those repos also tend to not be controlled by the BIP authors, it's also possible that they may include malicious code after being linked to. I think generally we should avoid linking to code where the authors of the code don't overlap with the authors of the BIP.
Therefore, I propose that the "Other Implementations" sections of this BIP should be removed.