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
84
85
86
87
88
|
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 CB3B4DF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:04:12 +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 7C1E1144
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:04:12 +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 0733238A9783;
Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160203:dscotese@litmocracy.com::WZVWXKK2voLhC2pn:aqSVt
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160203:jtimon@jtimon.cc::DTWdO3OAz6+SdxW9:acK/S
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160203:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::wjfHoEFu7PopvHUR:bJwKG
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:03:31 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
<201602021941.25382.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGLBAhdFo2pXcDfvPCTpm7ufQuG8z4mHsdoidGkhB3q5SWLj=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGLBAhdFo2pXcDfvPCTpm7ufQuG8z4mHsdoidGkhB3q5SWLj=A@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: <201602030003.33208.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
and copyright licenses
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:04:12 -0000
On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:28:40 PM Dave Scotese wrote:
> How about "defining" (rules, code, etc.) Such code and rules define what
> bitcoin is. It does require consensus and it ends up being a concord, but
> all that can come after the fact (just as it did after bitcoin was first
> released to the public).
The difficulty is that this BIP needs to refer to three different context of
consensus:
1. Consensus (stated) among developers for changes in the BIP Process.
2. Economic consensus (potential and stated) to veto a soft-fork by an
intended "firing" of the set of miners if they choose to enforce it.
3. (Actual) consensus in economic adoption of changed rules, to determine the
success of a hard-fork (after the fact).
4. The set of rules currently established as (defining) Bitcoin, enforced by
an (actual) consensus of economically-relevant nodes.
Context 3 can be disambiguated with "adoption consensus", and context 4 with
"consensus rules" and/or "consensus protocol", but I don't see a clear
solution that covers all four contexts, and even sharing the word "consensus"
for them may be confusing.
In addition, usage of the word "consensus" for context 4 has proven confusing
to users. For example, recently users misinterpreted the "Consensus" label
used in context 4 as implying that the idea itself had in fact achieved
consensus among some group of decision-makers (similar to context 1, but not
necessarily the group being "developers").
I don't know a good way to make this completely clear, so suggestions are more
than welcome.
Luke
|
