blob: cc55f786b0d52d800ddf705c372b90b27911c678 (
plain)
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
|
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 65858F34
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:46:00 +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 0549F140
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:45:59 +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 5F09A1080053;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:45:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:theandychase@gmail.com::=MsbvrvAb0w1oqFG:laE6
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::hj27COm=jSVL9Zix:BDJn
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:pete@petertodd.org::xY1WYNRmoTRZ/Gvm:aei6p
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:45:32 +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>
<201509042101.11839.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAxp-m8pgvHqUcmjCt6W5uscgb9ErtiTHdR0-nKU6OVdCE7rXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAxp-m8pgvHqUcmjCt6W5uscgb9ErtiTHdR0-nKU6OVdCE7rXA@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: <201509042145.34410.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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 21:46:00 -0000
On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go
> through a process like this? Just hard forks?
The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks
should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork
process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted
BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher
requirements.
Luke
|
