Bitcoin’s
open
source
development
is
an
often
heralded
strength,
a
show
of
the
network’s
resiliency
and
difficulty
to
capture.
But
take
a
closer
look,
and
anything
as
complex
as
developing,
updating
and
patching
up
a
blockchain
in
real
time
often
has
its
challenges.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
The
Node
newsletter,
a
daily
roundup
of
the
most
pivotal
crypto
news
on
CoinDesk
and
beyond.
You
can
subscribe
to
get
the
full
newsletter
here.
One
of
the
main
issues
for
the
past
couple
of
years
has
been
the
bottleneck
in
editing
BIPs,
or
Bitcoin
Improvement
Proposals,
the
standard
for
proposing
nonbinding
software
updates
that
will
somehow
change
the
Bitcoin
protocol.
That
is
set
to
change
going
forward,
after
the
dispersed,
global
Bitcoin
development
community
decided
to
nominate
five
new
BIP
editors.
The
move
marks
the
first
time
in
Bitcoin
history
where
there
was
more
than
one
person
on
the
job
—
a
role
that
for
the
past
decade
was
filled
by
controversial
Bitcoin
OG
Luke
Dashjr
alone.
Bitcoin
Core
developer
Ava
Chow
led
the
nomination
process
to
name
the
five
new
editors:
Bitcoin
dev
and
Custodia
Bank
co-founded
Bryan
Bishop
(a.k.a.
Kanzure),
co-hosts
of
the
bitdevs.org
mailing
list
Murch
and
Ruben
Somsen,
Lightning
Labs
CTO
Olaoluwa
Osuntokun
(a.k.a.
Roasbeef)
and
Bitcoin
Core
contributor
Jonatack.
The
months-long
search
effort
was
finalized
on
Monday,
after
Jonatack
made
modifications
to
the
BIP
GitHub.
“The
problem
was
that
Luke
was
the
only
BIP
editor,
which
means
that
he’s
the
only
person
who
could
merge
anything
into
the
BIP
repository,”
Chow
told
CoinDesk
in
an
interview.
“This
ranges
from
almost
no
effort
to
a
lot
of
effort,
and
it
just
ended
up
being
that
Luke
didn’t
have
time
for
this.”
“I
think
what
he
does
is
what
he
believes
to
be
the
best
for
Bitcoin
and
what
he
thinks
is
most
decentralized
and
best
for
the
whole
currency,”
Chow
added,
praising
Dashjr’s
many
contributions
over
the
years.
In
addition
to
making
regular
contributions
to
Bitcoin
Core,
Dashjr
also
serves
as
chief
technology
officer
of
Ocean
Mining.
BIP
editing
is
a
largely
unseen
aspect
of
the
development
process,
which
includes
anything
from
“trivial
things”
like
fixing
typos
in
proposals
to
evaluating
whether
it
should
be
a
BIP,
assigning
it
a
number
and
offering
detailed
feedback,
Chow
explained.
The
end
of
that
process
would
be
to
merge
the
BIP
into
the
GitHub
repository.
“One
of
the
big
frustrations
is
that
Luke
would
comment,
like,
hey,
you
need
to
fix
this
thing,
and
the
author
will
fix
it
in
like
a
few
hours.
But
then
we
wouldn’t
see
Luke
again
on
that
PR
[pull
request]
for
another
month
or
two.
Which
is
really
frustrating
because
like,
well,
I
did
exactly
what
you
wanted
me
to
do,”
Chow,
who
has
at
least
four
open
BIPs,
explained.
Introduced
by
early
Bitcoin
developer
Amir
Taaki
in
the
first
BIP
proposal
(BIP
0001)
in
August
2011,
the
process
of
submitting
improvement
proposals
has
become
more
formalized
over
the
years
—
but
somehow
less
streamlined.
Bitcoin
Core
almost
never
submits
BIPs,
which
tend
to
focus
on
things
like
improving
consensus,
wallets,
key
management
or
in
Chow’s
case
novel
transaction
types.
“The
line
between
what
is
and
isn’t
a
BIP
is
kind
of
fuzzy,”
Chow
said,
mentioning
proposals
like
Ordinals,
Colored
Coins
and
Taproot
Assets,
all
of
which
introduce
new
ways
of
using
Bitcoin,
but
perhaps
do
not
formally
change
the
protocol.
“There’s
a
line
in
BIP
002
that
says
something
along
the
lines
of
BIPs
must
support
Bitcoin
—
that’s
super
vague,
right?”
See
also:
What
Are
BIPs
and
Why
Do
They
Matter?
In
essence,
what
meets
the
criteria
of
being
a
BIP
is
a
matter
for
editors
to
decide,
a
process
that
Chow
thinks
will
be
made
more
efficient
by
adding
more
voices
from
more
diverse
backgrounds.
While
most
of
the
conversations
will
likely
continue
to
happen
out
of
the
public
eye,
the
greater
amount
of
debate
may
help
better
define
the
criteria
for
successful
proposals.
“The
BIPs
repository
records
concrete
ideas
for
reference.
A
comprehensive,
specific
description
is
indispensable
for
advancing
the
distributed
conversation
about
a
proposal.
I
hope
that
more
people
volunteering
time
to
sight
contributions
to
the
BIPs
repository
will
facilitate
more
efficient
discussions
about
ideas,”
Murch,
one
of
the
new
editors,
told
CoinDesk
in
an
email.
The
nomination
process,
which
kicked
off
in
January
after
a
recommendation
by
AJ
Towns,
and
by
Bitcoin’s
standards
could
be
said
to
have
gone
rather
smoothly.
For
a
while,
it
was
unclear
exactly
how
many
new
editors
to
add.
“I
thought
it
could
have
gone
faster,”
Chow
said.
“If
you
look
at
the
thread,
it
kind
of
went
silent
for
a
few
weeks
—
that
was
frustrating.”
Good
timing
At
least
in
the
world
of
blockchain
—
where
“move
fast,
break
things”
and
“test
in
production”
are
common
mantras
—
Bitcoin
development
could
be
seen
as
comparatively
slow.
For
instance,
the
last
major
protocol-wide
upgrade,
Taproot,
went
live
three
years
ago,
after
years
of
R&D.
To
some
extent,
this
has
all
changed
since
the
introduction
of
Casey
Rodamor’s
Ordinals
protocol
last
year,
which
ignited
a
new
meme-loving
trading
culture
on
a
chain
that
has
for
years
tried
to
resist
the
more
“degenerate”
aspects
of
the
wider
crypto
market.
And
so,
there
is
a
case
to
be
made
that
the
new
BIP
editors
couldn’t
have
come
at
a
better
time.
Though
some
used
the
moment
of
yesterday’s
nomination
as
an
opportunity
to
troll,
tweeting
that
OP_CAT
—
a
novel
way
to
introduce
smart
contracts
on
Bitcoin
to
build
more
complicated
apps
—
was
assigned
a
BIP
number
420.
References
to
cannabis
culture
aside,
the
joke
does
help
elucidate
the
tensions
and
human
conflicts
inherent
in
essentially
gatekeeping
what
proposals
count.
Dashjr,
for
instance,
is
a
known
opponent
of
OP_CAT
and
Ordinals,
and
some
saw
him
as
unfairly
standing
in
the
way
of
approving
their
respective
proposals.
“As
far
as
I
am
aware
OP_CAT
has
not
been
assigned
a
BIP
number,”
BastionZero
CTO
Ethan
Heilman,
one
of
the
proposal’s
co-authors,
told
CoinDesk
in
an
email.
“We
could
be
assigned
a
BIP
number
at
any
point
so
this
information
may
be
out
of
date.
The
only
source
of
truth
on
this
question
is
the
BIP
PR
here.”
“I’m
glad
to
see
the
Bitcoin
community
getting
more
editors.
It
is
a
good
sign
for
Bitcoin
development.
Being
a
BIP
editor
is
a
thankless
job
and
I
appreciate
the
work
that
BIP
editors
put
in
to
help
the
community.
I
am
grateful
to
everyone
that
volunteered
for
this
role,”
Heilman
added.
Indeed,
it’s
possible
that
more
editors
means
more
BIPs
get
approved
and
merged
—
after
all,
the
end
game
is
efficiency.
But
it’s
possible
that
Bitcoin,
filled
as
it
is
with
strong
personalities
who
hold
strong
opinions,
may
always
be
more
interested
in
debate
than
speed.
Chow
for
one
said
that
although
she
has
a
more
“relaxed
view”
of
what
should
be
considered
a
BIP,
she
doesn’t
think
Ordinals
(which
she
called
“kinda
dumb”)
meet
the
criteria
—
though
she
wouldn’t
oppose
it
out
of
hand.
“It’s
just
documentation,”
Chow
said.
“Who
cares?”
