Removed link and reference to SLIP-0173

[dplusplus1024]

SLIP-0173 is not relevant to BIP173 due to not containing any additional information about bitcoin.

[apoelstra]

It may be irrelevant to Bitcoin, but it redirects a common request about BIP-173, without needing any action from the BIP maintainer or others here.

[clarkmoody]

The SLIPs have been a bulwark against countless altcoin PRs directed at this repository. See SLIP-044 for a prime example.

…

-Clark

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023, 09:08 Andrew Poelstra ***@***.***> wrote: It may be irrelevant to Bitcoin, but it redirects a common request about BIP-173, without needing any action from the BIP maintainer or others here. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1481 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAL5OMIPSVTS2NX6GW3NOT3XRUV4BANCNFSM6AAAAAA2UJBDWA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[dplusplus1024]

@apoelstra @clarkmoody Thank you both for responding. It is my perspective that linking these projects may be perceived as an official endorsement for them. However, I can understand the desire to stop needless PRs. The question is, what is more important - preventing PRs or preventing users from being led astray?

[apoelstra]

I don't think it'd be perceived as an "official endorsement". Perhaps an "official acknowledgement", but that's fairly accurate -- if we were to add new HRPs in Bitcoin for something, we would check SLIP-173 to avoid colliding, because it's an easy check and it's good social grace.

[murchandamus]

It sounds to me that the BIP authors declined this proposed change to their BIP.

[murchandamus]

Oh oops, I got the impression that Andrew and Clark were the authors, but just realized that BIP173 is bech32 of course. Paging @sipa and @gmaxwell.