The ordinals BIP pull request was closed on March 4th, 2026 after being open for over three years.

I tried to respond to all topical comments and criticisms, which was made slightly challenging by the fact that the thread was nearly completely unmoderated.

I received some basic feedback on formatting and style from the BIP editors, but no feedback relating to why or why not the pull request might be merged. Occasionally, the scope of the BIPs repository was mentioned, but never what that scope actually was, and how it might relate to the pull request.

The pull request was finally closed by Bryan Bishop, seemingly unilaterally, with the comment "I am rejecting this proposal to merge Ordinals into the BIP repository and will not be assigning a number." It was also locked, which is, as far as I can tell, totally unprecedented for an extensively discussed and revised pull request.

I started writing this blog post without actually having a clear idea of why, exactly, I was writing it, but I think, in the end, the best reason I can give is that the whole process was incredibly frustrating, and venting about frustrating things feels good.

In the spirit of improving the BIPs process, I wanted to provide what is hopefully actionable feedback for the BIP editors from the perspective of a BIP author:

• BIP editors should provide specific feedback as to why a pull request isn't being merged. Even if it is eventually closed, it is far preferable to know why and to be able to understand and respond. It is deeply unsatisfying as a contributor to have to ask in private for feedback, or hope that an editor will explain their thinking in a Twitter thread.

• BIP editors should moderate PR threads. Hundreds of duplicative and off-topic comments make following discussion challenging. Additionally, without moderation it is impossible for a BIP author to know which pieces of third-party feedback are substantive and should be addressed, and which can be ignored.

• Create a process for resolving disputes. I suggest that if the BIP editors cannot come to an agreement to merge or close a PR after three months, it should be closed and the author should be invited to re-submit it after a year.

• The BIP editors should, whenever questions of the scope of the BIPs repo come up with respect to a particular BIP, explain what they believe the scope of the repo is, and how it relates to the BIP in question. Whenever there is enough clarity and agreement, the scope of the repo should be codified in writing in a process BIP. If BIPs which were previously accepted are later decided to be out-of-scope going forward, this should be clearly documented, since accepted BIPs are otherwise a reasonable way for an outsider to determine the scope of the BIPs process.

• The BIP editors should not act unilaterally in closing a controversial PR. Unilateral action by a BIP editor does not clarify the scope of the repository, is clearly undesirable in principle, and makes such action more likely in the future.

If BIP editors adhered to the above, it's still entirely possible that the ordinals BIP would have been closed. However, I would have gotten feedback on why, had the opportunity to respond, and the process would have served to help clarify the scope of the BIPs repository.