Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15E7D119A for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:52:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com [209.85.213.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E15B103 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so5846277igb.0 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:52:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=IgUOjoautIdW0dKNc1dgkJFe+CRVZyjjaj7ssVAiAyw=; b=fFD+oyk4E9k4lziB0PnPQrRth5fw1RUpj/Mk2qJpCIJZyF7tVG7x8LiQGZPEAn4p7B s1i8j3Yn/W2FMq1ikQLPFVGTa9xQTfP+0FqSKCSHRA3CbDYS/i4izDRmeGE1Fma3KEUW 9sFhemxtp9lhblUrSBeWDHabQencBzU0LA1mhVaIDiHn0NLCHi8GcNDxJsOqttDNrk3E rrlz3I72Mrnd1qQDI4sxFUlPchh1jPyGsrfS308VxAKC63BuVC4UkaEwo2oI0zIUxY0n RU4sF5TQVkmEzyTqvSbhy9evBZxKIx7y0kH0hMzQMgUOlx++lht9XxqaGHgt35Tj0ChE FzrA== X-Received: by 10.50.8.69 with SMTP id p5mr1807175iga.43.1441327945837; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:52:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asperous2@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.3.33 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:52:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201509040041.07948.luke@dashjr.org> References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com> <201509040041.07948.luke@dashjr.org> From: Andy Chase Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:52:06 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tOENYcEOXdDfEItXvCRTD3V4SUE Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184c18377578051ee15055 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:52:27 -0000 --089e01184c18377578051ee15055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Any such a BIP like this needs to > document the natural forces involved in real-world acceptance, not try to lay > down "rules" that people are expected to follow. That's my goal: to take the hodgepodge of we already use for acceptance, and apply rules that allow true acceptance to be identified in a clearer way. If people don't follow the "rules" then the system simply won't work, this is mentioned in the last section. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Friday, September 04, 2015 12:30:50 AM Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > > Here's a BIP. I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of > > governance, but I=E2=80=99m moderately serious about it. > > Sigh. There is *no governance at all*. Any such a BIP like this needs to > document the natural forces involved in real-world acceptance, not try to > lay > down "rules" that people are expected to follow. > > For hardforks, that means economic consensus. For softforks, miner > majority. > For basically anything else, real-world implementation and use (by any > significant quantity of people). > > Luke > --089e01184c18377578051ee15055 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Any such a BIP like this needs to=C2=A0
> docu= ment the natural forces involved in real-world acceptance, not try to lay= =C2=A0
> down "rules" that people are expected to fo= llow.

That's my goal: to take the hodgepodge o= f we already use for acceptance, and apply rules that allow true acceptance= to be identified in a clearer way.

If people don&= #39;t follow the "rules" then the system simply won't work, t= his is mentioned in the last section.

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@= dashjr.org> wrote:
On= Friday, September 04, 2015 12:30:50 AM Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Here's a BIP. I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of > governance, but I=E2=80=99m moderately serious about it.

Sigh. There is *no governance at all*. Any such a BIP like this need= s to
document the natural forces involved in real-world acceptance, not try to l= ay
down "rules" that people are expected to follow.

For hardforks, that means economic consensus. For softforks, miner majority= .
For basically anything else, real-world implementation and use (by any
significant quantity of people).

Luke

--089e01184c18377578051ee15055--