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
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
|
Return-Path: <mus@musalbas.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1AF7CF8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:45:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from science.musalbas.com (science.musalbas.com [195.154.112.130])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5685144
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:45:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.7.0.6] (unknown [10.7.0.6])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by science.musalbas.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB9C46A0961
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:36:40 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=musalbas.com;
s=mail; t=1457570200;
bh=USVbzyDsEjznlOgrD581Ca5QgFth18NULQ+ZAVRDVhM=;
h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To;
b=Bu/PzsMfVOGnUR9YTPyUY0fvAc3I7jgBsAlgCRltZOW/kqKp/XQFaAO8COoI7CTJd
0mOX5VjgqST7uJh5HzwzEyEHSDmm/MGzgtfTuxR5BVAOL0gX8vXCQKBvCb0LgiNpLt
o0BAdZ1/zpv98tVMZ1Uh/BTcCWU0q3gTXtbTTWGY=
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Mustafa Al-Bassam <mus@musalbas.com>
Message-ID: <56E0C197.7040708@musalbas.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:36:39 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:03:37 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:45:19 -0000
> the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork
has potentially-majority support, or at most three months.
This wording is awkward. What is "potentially-majority"?
>A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy,
particularly including those selling desirable goods and services in
exchange for bitcoin payments, as well as Bitcoin holders who wish to
spend or would spend their bitcoins (including selling for other
currencies) differently in the event of such a hard-fork.
What if one shop owner, for example, out of thousands, doesn't adapt the
hard-fork? It is expected, and should perhaps be encouraged, for a small
minority to not accept a hard fork, but by the wording of the BIP
("entire Bitcoin economy"), one shop owner can veto a hard-fork.
Mustafa
On 08/03/16 19:04, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It has been about 1 month since BIP 2 finished receiving comments, so I
> believe it is an appropriate time to begin the process of moving it to Final
> Status. Toward this end, I have opened a pull request:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350
>
> The current requirement for this is that "the reference implementation is
> complete and accepted by the community". Given the vagueness of this criteria,
> I intend to move forward applying BIP 2's more specific criteria to itself:
>
>> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves rough
>> consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have rough
>> consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development mailing list
>> for at least one month, and no person maintains any unaddressed
>> substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive objections may be
>> ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have been sufficiently
>> addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such circumstances.
> Furthermore, there is a reference implementation in the mentioned PR.
>
> Please review the latest draft BIP and provide any objections ASAP.
> If there are no outstanding objections on 2016 April 9th, I will consider the
> current draft to have reached rough consensus and update its Status to Final
> by merging the PR.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
