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
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0021CF5A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149058.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149058.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.58])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37108FC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t84KVoTu023562;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:31:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck (cpe-24-164-134-182.nyc.res.rr.com [24.164.134.182])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t84KVjJe032135
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:31:47 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:31:44 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150904203144.GB463@muck>
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
<CABaSBaw7hM2qmuR6Z6USy5=V9NGeCPKmHHuVOH=vexDk7kY8OA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAxp-m_vo5vJEemR_hRX3hNcUPveA6EHn-ZFMJo8ke59E6BrKw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvanj41Dfa4kQsq5SVvt-Zeee2SOfD3Uws-FpBQsyZsqg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="neYutvxvOLaeuPCA"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: f74f2832-5343-11e5-9f76-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdgYUC1AEAgsB AmMbWVVeU1x7XWs7 aQ5PbANZfEtNWxtr
WEpWR1pVCwQmRRQF fXhEKExydAdHe3s+ ZERjXngVCkN+I0R1
QUxJEG4CZnphaTUa TUkOcAVJcANIexZF O1F8UScOLwdSbGoL
FQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpg CjInDGpVbVwCECIJ DzojJX0GFkYIXzk6
KRcrYmYGG00cKV5a
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.164.134.182/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
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 20:31:53 -0000
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:13:18PM -0700, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>=20
> My proposal isn't perfect for sure. There's likely much better ways to do
> it. But to be clear what I'm trying to solve is basically this:
>=20
> 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.
It depends on a case-by-case basis.
E.g. for soft-forks miners can do what they want with little ability for
other parties to have a say. For non-consensus-related standards - e.g.
address formats - it's quite possible for a BIP to be "accepted" even if
only a small group of users use the standard. For hard-forks almost
everyone is involved, though who can stop a fork isn't as well defined.
IMO trying to "set up a system" in that kind of environment is silly,
and likely to be a bureaucratic waste of time. Let the market decide, as
has happened previously. If you're idea isn't getting acceptance, do a
better job of convincing the people who need to adopt it that it is a
good idea.
No amount of words on paper will change the fact that we can't force
people to run software they don't want to run. The entire formal part of
the BIP process is simply a convenience so we have clear, short, numbers
that we can refer to when discussing ideas and standards. The rest of
the process - e.g. what Adam Back and others have been referring to when
attempting to dissuade Hearn and Andresen - is by definition always
going to be a fuzzy, situation-specific, and generally undefined
process.
Or put another way, even if you did create your proposed process, the
first time those committees "approved" a BIP that relevant stakeholders
disagreed with, you'd find out pretty quickly that "clear acceptance" of
your 4% sample would fall apart the moment the other 96% realized what a
tiny minority was intending to do. Particularly if it was one of the
inhernet cases where the underlying math means a particular group - like
miners - has the ability to override what another group wants out of
Bitcoin.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000010f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=OCZk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA--
|
