Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 01:56:59 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <20150629055659.GC502@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org>
	<201506290540.26019.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgRZh=__VGH8aJq4D9G62ostt20YUafJ66mm7BhdBRKe=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<201506290551.56764.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201506290551.56764.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
Precedence: list


--kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:51:55AM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:43:13 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs.
> >=20
> > Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the
> > conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or
> > especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think,
> > reasonable uses of the process.
> >=20
> > E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if
> > you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all!
>=20
> Then we are to start issuing a new BIP for every node's policy? This has =
no=20
> end - though it might make sense for an independent and updated database.=
=20
> Mixing protocol standards with policy suggestions makes a very risky situ=
ation=20
> where one can potentially hold a miner liable for not enforcing the BIP; =
ie,=20
> government regulation of Bitcoin itself. I don't think most people want t=
o go=20
> there...

Remember that one of the goals of full-RBF is to explicitly reject the
idea that miners should have any obligation with regard to what they're
mining. I perhaps should say that explicitly in my BIP proposal; I say
it implicitly by pointing out how the BIP *doesn't* define an exact
standard, but rather only an suggests an implementation as a starting
point.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ffad4a87861689c067f5dd3b98b84d8096572c163aa913a

--kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=JWHo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn--