1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92CA01200
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:02:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAD0188
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:02:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF05B10801BA;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:01:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::CZDftcRt6BmuB2pk:aL3tD
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:theandychase@gmail.com::KZ/HUedme2P8vfjA:0kuO
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:btcdrak@gmail.com::n/c2JKrZ+WoxidaX:cl01=
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:01:09 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvanj41Dfa4kQsq5SVvt-Zeee2SOfD3Uws-FpBQsyZsqg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201509042101.11839.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
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 <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: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:02:35 -0000
On Friday, September 04, 2015 8:13:18 PM Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.
For hardforks (removing consensus rules), economic consensus: people who
accept payment in bitcoins weighted by their actual volume of such payments.
A supermajority subset may arguably be sufficient for some hardforks (which
don't violate Bitcoin's social contract) since they can effectively compel
the remaining economy to comply.
For softforks (adding consensus rules), a majority of miners: they can "51%
attack" miners who don't go along with it.
Anything else does not necessarily need universal agreement, so are
completely up to the whim of individual software projects. If someone doesn't
like a decision in Core (for example), they can safely fork the code. If any
significant amount of people use their fork, then the BIP is accepted whether
or not Core later adopts it.
Note this "system" is really describing a lack of a system - that is, what
naturally must happen for changes to occur. Softforks have a relatively
mature technical method for measuring support and deploying (which I believe
someone else is already working on a BIP describing), but the same thing is
impractical for hardforks. Some formal way to measure actual economic
acceptance seems like a good idea to study, but it needs to be reasonably
accurate so as to not change the outcome from its natural/necessary result.
Luke
|
