Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CFA7A71 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:23:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C42713C for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:23:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z14so69114761igp.0 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:23:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=xXRK10Lby7KlOr/8xfv+/N2O13F7RpgGlOSFK1qof8Q=; b=lGE27Nv/Yw64mKB2OZFH4iK7dvV2tsSFXOUe8EMTLRLWTOYXFhTX/exwY1SDqixgZA FicCQ3pePaRHk+ne/mvDiiwGFptoSNzofugA7iC7JEkpan/zcjojYE97fKTLsGL70wu+ x3JOPlsPFkF/b1Uicovt3AMZkm+pbv2zm4Wnf70o6VxjPqw//ZuUpb8es6JeQj97xjcP eU4EwsjI/z/LoCXycApy6r9UyEeqTrV7FjjHMwUWo8TU8kSZigImvfzGtmu7SAKogoPj ixMDvev4N1t5DP6Io9q+doyA5OxHGMTMsk67Lu5XQTf6DyJ6mm11+LGMIEBqkYlriT25 G5sQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=xXRK10Lby7KlOr/8xfv+/N2O13F7RpgGlOSFK1qof8Q=; b=FVHMybndlBDY/NroaTJJyeDEExON8dJOepqPMdqBQsKwirKwY9VNfJkg0Ib3hr0qn6 k2izzKBzVyBROgXB8tBHwqdox+e9Rk1+JhOR1Ig3HWmX1NrT/bY8J6OTZ4f/vHOkD1KV 97UOTuf5XEFF6es1CLhQmBYaf8BcrU9g0OEHQM+Gruf+WaoyYHnArq9j1rOHvmOBWMkU YUyLjno2OjMma3rO+FKpXiZf0uO6wst6d3uUfCL27OWm4+vkKy79OusPz7F2sWEtoCcK UfHy/IKFEWp04qmTe6clF/J+vxswhr1K/qkEAFOhKgzgvW0PG0gHGf61H3Itn9CWuMT2 7IsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ/3ckFNxnmza+34XBHxUMsmXq2POQrB4X/bwAqQN6fkNhgbBsNU/BuIurBoPpHiHLvs4tbs4o3qLQlPQ== X-Received: by 10.50.41.68 with SMTP id d4mr14539264igl.31.1453177430515; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:23:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asperous2@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.122.103 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:23:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201601190212.30685.luke@dashjr.org> References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com> <201509042145.34410.luke@dashjr.org> <201601190212.30685.luke@dashjr.org> From: Andy Chase Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:23:31 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: L5jsDGG-qUNEXe2egyjhj7c1ahY Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011768e78aa7fe0529a83caf X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_SBL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:37:01 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , gmaxwell@gmail.com Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:23:52 -0000 --089e011768e78aa7fe0529a83caf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks for your comments Luke. > Are you saying your proposal is intentionally not intended to reflect the reality? That's right. I want to be able to include more voices and be able to get a clearer idea of acceptance then the process currently has available. This process should work alongside the current one; not replace it. > conditions under which a proposal is *known to be* accepted by the community *known to be* Is what I'm working towards; yes; but I think we need additional tools/processes to determine that then what we currently have available. > As mentioned, IMO a committee shouldn't be indicating acceptance, as much as it should be *determining* acceptance. The committee determine acceptance when taking their opinions in aggregate. The source of their indication might be similar to what we currently have (esp for Core Devs, etc.) > That sounds very time consuming Ok > And what happens if these committees don't represent the community? The committee structures are fluid-- that is users are able to re-organize at any time. > What about when only part of the community - let's say 10% - decides to adopt a BIP that doesn't require consensus This might happen, but is not a flaw in my process. My process makes it clear they are going against the acceptance of the rest of the community. I don't intend to "force" anyone to implement or use an accepted BIP. If that is desired that's outside the scope of this BIP. > But the Bitcoin user base is completely unknown, and tracking software user base is a privacy violation. I made a suggestion for this here: https://gist.github.com/andychase/dddb83c294295879308b If there are other ways for honest but anonymous voting mechanisms (that aren't proof-of-stake since that's proof-of-most-money) I'd be all ears. > Bitcoin economic activity is also unknown > This needs a proper specification. How do miners express their positions? I agree these are flaws in the proposal. I'm not sure that one way of indicating should be considered valid forever, but may have to change over time. > Chosen how, and by whom? I think the process could be used to determine this. > but I don't think we can just let the author set any conditions they like either I'm not sure what you mean here but would love more information. On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 9:19:51 PM Andy Chase wrote: > > Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current > state > > of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on > > this proposal. I would welcome that. > > Are you saying your proposal is intentionally not intended to reflect the > reality? I wasn't talking about a "current state of affairs" for BIPs as > much > as that that the acceptance of BIPs is *defined by* the state of affairs. > > Overall, I think something *similar to* this proposal is a good idea, but I > disagree with how this proposal currently approaches the problem. Instead, > what I would recommend is a specification based on BIP 123 that specifies > the > conditions under which a proposal is *known to be* accepted by the > community > (ie, discerning, not deciding), and establishes a way for a committee to > review the BIP and *determine* if these conditions have been met. This > would > avoid a "disconnect" between the "official status" and reality, making the > BIP > process more useful to everyone. > > Reviewing your current proposal: > > > * It sets up '''committees''' for reviewing comments and indicating > > acceptance under precise conditions. > > As mentioned, IMO a committee shouldn't be indicating acceptance, as much > as > it should be *determining* acceptance. > > > ** Committees are authorized groups that represent client authors, > miners, > > merchants, and users (each as a segment). Each one must represent at > least > > 1% stake in the Bitcoin ecosystem. > > 1% seems like an awful lot to dedicate to BIP status changes. > > > A committee system is used to organize the essential concerns of each > > segment of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Although each segment may have many > > different viewpoints on each BIP, in order to seek a decisive yes/no on a > > BIP, a representational authoritative structure is sought. This structure > > should be fluid, allowing people to move away from committees that do not > > reflect their views and should be re-validated on each BIP evaluation. > > That sounds very time consuming. And what happens if these committees don't > represent the community? What about when only part of the community - let's > say 10% - decides to adopt a BIP that doesn't require consensus? Logically > that BIP should still proceed... > > > ** Proof of claim and minimum 1% stake via: > > *** Software: proof of ownership and user base (Min 1% of Bitcoin > userbase) > > But the Bitcoin user base is completely unknown, and tracking software user > base is a privacy violation. > > > ** Merchant: proof of economic activity (Min 1% of Bitcoin economic > > activity) > > Bitcoin economic activity is also unknown, and it seems likely that > merchants > consider their own activity confidential. > > > Mining: proof of work (Min 1% of Hashpower) > > This needs a proper specification. How do miners express their positions? > > > A BIP Process Manager should be chosen who is in charge of: > > Chosen how, and by whom? > > > == Conditions for activation == > > > > In order for this process BIP to become active, it must succeed by its > own > > rules. At least a 4% sample of the Bitcoin community must be represented, > > with at least one committee in each segment included. Once at least one > > committee has submitted a declaration, a request for comments will be > called > > and the process should be completed from there. > > Until this BIP is active, its rules do not apply, so this would be a form > of > circular reasoning. I like the idea of putting conditions for activation in > the BIP text, but I don't think we can just let the author set any > conditions > they like either... > > Luke > --089e011768e78aa7fe0529a83caf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for your comments Luke.

&g= t; Are you saying your proposal is intentionally not intended to reflect th= e
reality?

That's right. I want to be able= to include more voices and be able to get a clearer idea of acceptance the= n the process currently has available.

This proces= s should work alongside the current one; not replace it.

>=C2=A0conditions under which a proposal is *known to be* accepte= d by the community

*known to be* Is what I'm w= orking towards; yes; but I think we need additional tools/processes to dete= rmine that then what we currently have available.

= >=C2=A0As mentioned, IMO a committee sh= ouldn't be indicating acceptance, as much as
it should be *determining* acceptance.

The=C2=A0committee=C2=A0determine acceptance when taking their opini= ons in aggregate. The source of their=C2=A0indication might be=C2=A0similar= =C2=A0to what we currently have (esp for Core Devs, etc.)
=
>=C2=A0That sounds very time consuming

Ok

<= /div>
>=C2=A0And what happens if th= ese committees don't=C2=A0repre= sent the community?

<= /span>
The committee structures = are fluid-- that is users are able to re-organize at any time.
=

>=C2=A0What about w= hen only part of the community - let's=C2=A0say 10% - decides to adopt a BIP that doesn't require cons= ensus

This might happen, but is not a flaw in= my process. My process makes it clear they are going against the acceptanc= e of the rest of the community. I don't intend to "force" any= one to implement or use an accepted BIP. If that is desired that's outs= ide the scope of this BIP.

>=C2=A0But the = Bitcoin user base is completely unknown, and tracking software user=C2=A0base is a privacy violation.

I made a suggestion for this here:=C2=A0https://gist.github.c= om/andychase/dddb83c294295879308b

If ther= e are other ways for honest but=C2=A0anonymous=C2=A0voting mechanisms (that= aren't proof-of-stake since=C2=A0that's proof-of-most-money) I'= ;d be all ears.

> Bitcoin economic activity is also unknown
<= span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">>=C2=A0This needs a proper specification. How do miners express their posit= ions?

I agree these are flaws in the proposal= . I'm not sure that one way of indicating should be considered valid fo= rever, but may have to change over time.

>= =C2=A0Chosen how, and by whom?

I think the process could be used to determin= e this.

&g= t;=C2=A0but I don't think we can just let the author set any conditions= they like either
=
I'm not sure what you mean here but would love more inform= ation.

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Luke Dashjr <= luke@dashjr.org>= ; wrote:
On Saturday, September 05= , 2015 9:19:51 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current = state
> of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective= on
> this proposal. I would welcome that.

Are you saying your proposal is intentionally not intended to reflect the reality? I wasn't talking about a "current state of affairs" = for BIPs as much
as that that the acceptance of BIPs is *defined by* the state of affairs.
Overall, I think something *similar to* this proposal is a good idea, but I=
disagree with how this proposal currently approaches the problem. Instead,<= br> what I would recommend is a specification based on BIP 123 that specifies t= he
conditions under which a proposal is *known to be* accepted by the communit= y
(ie, discerning, not deciding), and establishes a way for a committee to review the BIP and *determine* if these conditions have been met. This woul= d
avoid a "disconnect" between the "official status" and = reality, making the BIP
process more useful to everyone.

Reviewing your current proposal:

> * It sets up '''committees''' for reviewing co= mments and indicating
> acceptance under precise conditions.

As mentioned, IMO a committee shouldn't be indicating acceptance, as mu= ch as
it should be *determining* acceptance.

> ** Committees are authorized groups that represent client authors, min= ers,
> merchants, and users (each as a segment). Each one must represent at l= east
> 1% stake in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

1% seems like an awful lot to dedicate to BIP status changes.

> A committee system is used to organize the essential concerns of each<= br> > segment of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Although each segment may have many<= br> > different viewpoints on each BIP, in order to seek a decisive yes/no o= n a
> BIP, a representational authoritative structure is sought. This struct= ure
> should be fluid, allowing people to move away from committees that do = not
> reflect their views and should be re-validated on each BIP evaluation.=

That sounds very time consuming. And what happens if these committees don&#= 39;t
represent the community? What about when only part of the community - let&#= 39;s
say 10% - decides to adopt a BIP that doesn't require consensus? Logica= lly
that BIP should still proceed...

> ** Proof of claim and minimum 1% stake via:
> *** Software: proof of ownership and user base (Min 1% of Bitcoin user= base)

But the Bitcoin user base is completely unknown, and tracking software user=
base is a privacy violation.

> ** Merchant: proof of economic activity (Min 1% of Bitcoin economic > activity)

Bitcoin economic activity is also unknown, and it seems likely that merchan= ts
consider their own activity confidential.

> Mining: proof of work (Min 1% of Hashpower)

This needs a proper specification. How do miners express their positions?
> A BIP Process Manager should be chosen who is in charge of:

Chosen how, and by whom?

> =3D=3D Conditions for activation =3D=3D
>
> In order for this process BIP to become active, it must succeed by its= own
> rules. At least a 4% sample of the Bitcoin community must be represent= ed,
> with at least one committee in each segment included. Once at least on= e
> committee has submitted a declaration, a request for comments will be = called
> and the process should be completed from there.

Until this BIP is active, its rules do not apply, so this would be a form o= f
circular reasoning. I like the idea of putting conditions for activation in=
the BIP text, but I don't think we can just let the author set any cond= itions
they like either...

Luke

--089e011768e78aa7fe0529a83caf--