MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150904203144.GB463@muck>
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
	<CABaSBaw7hM2qmuR6Z6USy5=V9NGeCPKmHHuVOH=vexDk7kY8OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAxp-m_vo5vJEemR_hRX3hNcUPveA6EHn-ZFMJo8ke59E6BrKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzvanj41Dfa4kQsq5SVvt-Zeee2SOfD3Uws-FpBQsyZsqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150904203144.GB463@muck>
From: Martin Becze <mjbecze@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:42:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CALz06g6YGCfnR0V2+jP1pWVXGj9-=hZRz9QHX5mzoz08P1ynKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d7c70a714da051ef1f24d
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process
Precedence: list

--047d7b6d7c70a714da051ef1f24d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>> Let the market decide
How about Futarchy?

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:13:18PM -0700, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> > My proposal isn't perfect for sure. There's likely much better ways to do
> > it. But to be clear what I'm trying to solve is basically this:
> >
> > Who makes high-level Bitcoin decisions? Miners, client devs, merchants,
> or
> > users? Let's set up a system where everyone has a say and clear
> acceptance
> > can be reached.
>
> It depends on a case-by-case basis.
>
> E.g. for soft-forks miners can do what they want with little ability for
> other parties to have a say. For non-consensus-related standards - e.g.
> address formats - it's quite possible for a BIP to be "accepted" even if
> only a small group of users use the standard. For hard-forks almost
> everyone is involved, though who can stop a fork isn't as well defined.
>
> IMO trying to "set up a system" in that kind of environment is silly,
> and likely to be a bureaucratic waste of time. Let the market decide, as
> has happened previously. If you're idea isn't getting acceptance, do a
> better job of convincing the people who need to adopt it that it is a
> good idea.
>
> No amount of words on paper will change the fact that we can't force
> people to run software they don't want to run. The entire formal part of
> the BIP process is simply a convenience so we have clear, short, numbers
> that we can refer to when discussing ideas and standards. The rest of
> the process - e.g. what Adam Back and others have been referring to when
> attempting to dissuade Hearn and Andresen - is by definition always
> going to be a fuzzy, situation-specific, and generally undefined
> process.
>
> Or put another way, even if you did create your proposed process, the
> first time those committees "approved" a BIP that relevant stakeholders
> disagreed with, you'd find out pretty quickly that "clear acceptance" of
> your 4% sample would fall apart the moment the other 96% realized what a
> tiny minority was intending to do. Particularly if it was one of the
> inhernet cases where the underlying math means a particular group - like
> miners - has the ability to override what another group wants out of
> Bitcoin.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000010f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--047d7b6d7c70a714da051ef1f24d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;&gt;=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"=
>Let the market decide</span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349=
px">How about Futarchy?</span><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Peter Todd via=
 bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a=
>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On F=
ri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:13:18PM -0700, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; Thanks for your thoughts.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; My proposal isn&#39;t perfect for sure. There&#39;s likely much better=
 ways to do<br>
&gt; it. But to be clear what I&#39;m trying to solve is basically this:<br=
>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Who makes high-level Bitcoin decisions? Miners, client devs, merchants=
, or<br>
&gt; users? Let&#39;s set up a system where everyone has a say and clear ac=
ceptance<br>
&gt; can be reached.<br>
<br>
</span>It depends on a case-by-case basis.<br>
<br>
E.g. for soft-forks miners can do what they want with little ability for<br=
>
other parties to have a say. For non-consensus-related standards - e.g.<br>
address formats - it&#39;s quite possible for a BIP to be &quot;accepted&qu=
ot; even if<br>
only a small group of users use the standard. For hard-forks almost<br>
everyone is involved, though who can stop a fork isn&#39;t as well defined.=
<br>
<br>
IMO trying to &quot;set up a system&quot; in that kind of environment is si=
lly,<br>
and likely to be a bureaucratic waste of time. Let the market decide, as<br=
>
has happened previously. If you&#39;re idea isn&#39;t getting acceptance, d=
o a<br>
better job of convincing the people who need to adopt it that it is a<br>
good idea.<br>
<br>
No amount of words on paper will change the fact that we can&#39;t force<br=
>
people to run software they don&#39;t want to run. The entire formal part o=
f<br>
the BIP process is simply a convenience so we have clear, short, numbers<br=
>
that we can refer to when discussing ideas and standards. The rest of<br>
the process - e.g. what Adam Back and others have been referring to when<br=
>
attempting to dissuade Hearn and Andresen - is by definition always<br>
going to be a fuzzy, situation-specific, and generally undefined<br>
process.<br>
<br>
Or put another way, even if you did create your proposed process, the<br>
first time those committees &quot;approved&quot; a BIP that relevant stakeh=
olders<br>
disagreed with, you&#39;d find out pretty quickly that &quot;clear acceptan=
ce&quot; of<br>
your 4% sample would fall apart the moment the other 96% realized what a<br=
>
tiny minority was intending to do. Particularly if it was one of the<br>
inhernet cases where the underlying math means a particular group - like<br=
>
miners - has the ability to override what another group wants out of<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">Bitcoin.<br>
<br>
--<br>
&#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
000000000000000010f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18<br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b6d7c70a714da051ef1f24d--