MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201702030024.10232.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAGCNRJqNg9-aYG62OxTz5RJyx+JJkx-kt2odooZWs92f5teZiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201702030024.10232.luke@dashjr.org>
From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:02:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGCNRJp6vpqqaf8=8CwPP6iXB6UULWh8Kezw2i-2GfLn3b1bxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Community Consensus Voting System
Precedence: list

--f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> Strongly disagree with buying "votes", or portraying open standards as a
> voting process. Also, this depends on address reuse, so it's fundamentally
> flawed in design.
>

The point of this is it's available right now. It's not ideal, but it will
work. It doesn't require any code and we can do it today.

In case you haven't been paying attention; there's already enough support
for Unlimited to prevent SegWit from ever being adopted. Without
significant community outreach (which is the purpose of the CCVS) and a
compelling solution to max block size, Core as a product is dead.

Also, you need to be pretty paranoid to believe that address reuse is an
issue in this situation.

Note also that the BIP process already has BIP Comments for leaving textual
> opinions on the BIP unrelated to stake. See BIP 2 for details on that.
>

This does nothing for the community in general. Plus there's no way to
measure that sort of feedback.

- t.k.

--f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Strongly disagree with buying &q=
uot;votes&quot;, or portraying open standards as a<br>
voting process. Also, this depends on address reuse, so it&#39;s fundamenta=
lly<br>
flawed in design.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The point of this is =
it&#39;s available right now. It&#39;s not ideal, but it will work. It does=
n&#39;t require any code and we can do it today.</div><div><br></div><div>I=
n case you haven&#39;t been paying attention; there&#39;s already enough su=
pport for Unlimited to prevent SegWit from ever being adopted. Without sign=
ificant community outreach (which is the purpose of the CCVS) and a compell=
ing solution to max block size, Core as a product is dead.</div><div><br></=
div><div>Also, you need to be pretty paranoid to believe that address reuse=
 is an issue in this situation.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">Note also that the BIP process already has BIP Comments for leaving=
 textual<br>
opinions on the BIP unrelated to stake. See BIP 2 for details on that.<br><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>This does nothing for the community in gene=
ral. Plus there&#39;s no way to measure that sort of feedback.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>- t.k.</div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>

--f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc--