diff options
| author | David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> | 2017-02-02 18:19:39 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-02-02 23:19:42 +0000 |
| commit | 24bf6b568a86aec98e0a3738eea0fe4af7f3ae66 (patch) | |
| tree | d7d415ff6a0a350b9556022b3492c1176b6e131d | |
| parent | 87453cc8b1d167b08f7e71dfb16ca9c94d031fc6 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-24bf6b568a86aec98e0a3738eea0fe4af7f3ae66.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-24bf6b568a86aec98e0a3738eea0fe4af7f3ae66.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Community Consensus Voting System
| -rw-r--r-- | fc/c492041f0bc5871f2cc0261a224e3e3bb2848f | 132 |
1 files changed, 132 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/fc/c492041f0bc5871f2cc0261a224e3e3bb2848f b/fc/c492041f0bc5871f2cc0261a224e3e3bb2848f new file mode 100644 index 000000000..11d360865 --- /dev/null +++ b/fc/c492041f0bc5871f2cc0261a224e3e3bb2848f @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +Return-Path: <david.vorick@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9ACB7E + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:19:42 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FFC1188 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:19:41 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c85so1666346wmi.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:19:41 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; + bh=3xyG2RPoxXU459Cr2lRz9EfjEWDANddOZwgCw74x3m0=; + b=JfbbXJp98/IkzXc5xV58sgJ5IX54B6HUH9c7FCzZPHpa+CKfscxLdrTfC+ArmeaO12 + yIhSZlpejSmHtFxRcAqXXB+ZdILnCcpfwBfVEPOnqKTzNsvgMSvY3mbcFKYH8pojnhmz + ZEbVtT+DsicCYJS6rFYyggvjUlyGrsrX19LaZ5cDaHs44zxM13zljLVgAVRo60Jb2lCB + h0ZA9B0KVuU80C2gZE7AX6v00/zHA5WUY1xcUqW1mfMKLxN2PYd4qyZapNlo/U8hsyz+ + +RlPPUDp0D8SGWqtsR/FlQIzTi57ytvQD6iBZGbQEt3pX44fTUu3EDyi2lStkCqgwqTP + LKaw== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to; + bh=3xyG2RPoxXU459Cr2lRz9EfjEWDANddOZwgCw74x3m0=; + b=OnMS6XkF95moB5Bk7GrR7z+mumIL18OEea2oDfu9eVX8fsk5dGYDKB/DT5ZwXkZHQu + VDhBFI1QtoWN6sJb3eSqKdj5K4m9MBcv6It3zvduewVQs82fCHIHIXdMQIJpQO1EvuR+ + /IjMEiCQTpGyvywojpYvhxy9L+oMSpWDwGnfbLXCklW47D7OqAfLio4GjY9R5Sm/j2Iz + blomU++YMhADfoUhoCk8E3oCL2UpVwX+615EH1AxChDXR0yXOT0xUBf2Kov/e2f99L9i + 9P98+BpTWU492KQS1Wydaw3zFYfKycTHmN43X6KhXbYDsW26togr417hLP4Oi0lGsIRo + H7ig== +X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kU7t8h2wqFxV1+8lFceMLsDGtq907glAXIkaVgkMa67DdvBasFHjrQedBmNstiiwdC7bfKFgImFVTKUg== +X-Received: by 10.28.132.2 with SMTP id g2mr16364wmd.103.1486077580155; Thu, + 02 Feb 2017 15:19:40 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.28.92.193 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:19:39 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.28.92.193 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:19:39 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJqNg9-aYG62OxTz5RJyx+JJkx-kt2odooZWs92f5teZiw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAGCNRJqNg9-aYG62OxTz5RJyx+JJkx-kt2odooZWs92f5teZiw@mail.gmail.com> +From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> +Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:19:39 -0500 +Message-ID: <CAFVRnyqGp9S8HDbHD4Byv26w1afcAorP0JxFq3awMunw6bG=eQ@mail.gmail.com> +To: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114423c646225605479466ce +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, + RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Community Consensus Voting System +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:19:42 -0000 + +--001a114423c646225605479466ce +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +I like the idea of having some way for developers to show that they've +given an idea legitimate consideration, as I feel some proposals are often +considered much more in depth before rejection than the proposer realizes, +however I don't think any sort of on-chain system really makes sense. It +complicates things a lot, adds code, incentives, etc. when really all you +care about is some sort of indication of consideration, support, or +rejection. + +I also prefer to think of Bitcoin as a system of vetos rather than a system +of approvals. A lot of times changes will be small, highly technical, and +have no visible impact to your every day user. These types of changes don't +really need support outside the devs. Furthermore, I frankly don't give a +crap if we proposal has support from 85% of the participants if there is a +legitimate technical, social, or political reason that it is a bad idea. + +And finally, I don't think it should cost money or political power to raise +an objection. A 13yo who has never been seen before should be able to raise +an objection if they indeed have a legitimate objection. Involving money is +almost certainly going to shut down important valid opinions. + +And again, I mostly agree with the motivation. It would be good if it were +easier to figure out who had considered a proposal and what their +objections or praises were. But I would like to see that without any +systemization around what is required to pass or fail a proposal, and with +no barrier to entry (such as voting or sending coins or having a recognized +name like 'Bitfury') to provide an opinion. + +--001a114423c646225605479466ce +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">I like the idea o= +f having some way for developers to show that they've given an idea leg= +itimate consideration, as I feel some proposals are often considered much m= +ore in depth before rejection than the proposer realizes, however I don'= +;t think any sort of on-chain system really makes sense. It complicates thi= +ngs a lot, adds code, incentives, etc. when really all you care about is so= +me sort of indication of consideration, support, or rejection.</div><div cl= +ass=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir= +=3D"auto">I also prefer to think of Bitcoin as a system of vetos rather tha= +n a system of approvals. A lot of times changes will be small, highly techn= +ical, and have no visible impact to your every day user. These types of cha= +nges don't really need support outside the devs. Furthermore, I frankly= + don't give a crap if we proposal has support from 85% of the participa= +nts if there is a legitimate technical, social, or political reason that it= + is a bad idea.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div= + class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">And finally, I don't think it shoul= +d cost money or political power to raise an objection. A 13yo who has never= + been seen before should be able to raise an objection if they indeed have = +a legitimate objection. Involving money is almost certainly going to shut d= +own important valid opinions.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">= +<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">And again, I mostly agree= + with the motivation. It would be good if it were easier to figure out who = +had considered a proposal and what their objections or praises were. But I = +would like to see that without any systemization around what is required to= + pass or fail a proposal, and with no barrier to entry (such as voting or s= +ending coins or having a recognized name like 'Bitfury') to provide= + an opinion.</div></div> + +--001a114423c646225605479466ce-- + |