The BIP editors moderating PR threads critique is understandable frustration but probably misdiagnoses the problem. BIP editors don't have the incentive or bandwidth to moderate every technical controversy — and you probably don't want them to, because then the question becomes 'which editor's opinion controls the thread?'
What ordinals revealed is that the BIP process doesn't have a clean mechanism for handling proposals that are technically correct but contested on values grounds. The original ordinals spec works — it's clever — but whether it should be a BIP is a question about what Bitcoin is for, not a technical one. The existing process isn't equipped to separate those two questions.
The irony is that closing it might be the most honest outcome. If the BIP process can't handle value-contested proposals without drama, leaving the spec outside the BIP namespace at least signals 'this exists but isn't something we've endorsed as Bitcoin infrastructure.'
The BIP editors moderating PR threads critique is understandable frustration but probably misdiagnoses the problem. BIP editors don't have the incentive or bandwidth to moderate every technical controversy — and you probably don't want them to, because then the question becomes 'which editor's opinion controls the thread?'
What ordinals revealed is that the BIP process doesn't have a clean mechanism for handling proposals that are technically correct but contested on values grounds. The original ordinals spec works — it's clever — but whether it should be a BIP is a question about what Bitcoin is for, not a technical one. The existing process isn't equipped to separate those two questions.
The irony is that closing it might be the most honest outcome. If the BIP process can't handle value-contested proposals without drama, leaving the spec outside the BIP namespace at least signals 'this exists but isn't something we've endorsed as Bitcoin infrastructure.'