Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F00A11E8 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:41:43 +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 0986510C for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:41:42 +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 3796638A99D4; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:41:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:jtimon@jtimon.cc::Lj6+Qhahdo1BZI7j:aT9HG X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:gavinandresen@gmail.com::tAQ=GcoBU2dsesv5:x9t5 X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::kN+FkJ8KRaKicZeg:jgP+ From: Luke Dashjr To: Jorge =?utf-8?q?Tim=C3=B3n?= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:41:24 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201602021941.25382.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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:41:43 -0000 On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:38:59 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > In the section > https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawi > ki#formally-defining-consensus >=20 > Can we please find another term for the "consensus" here (which is > often confused with "consensus rules", "consensus code" etc)? > In BIP99 I used the term "uncontroversial", but I'm happy to change it > to something else if that helps us moving away from consistently using > the same term for two related but very different concepts. > "nearly universal acceptance", "ecosystem-harmonious"...seriously, > almost anything would be better than keep overloading "consensus"... "Uncontroversial" doesn't really express the correct idea. There has been a lot of confusion over "consensus rules/code" anyway, so wh= ile=20 we're on the subject of terminology, I would suggest we change *that* use o= f=20 "consensus" instead to clear up the confusion. It would probably work quite= =20 well to rename it to "concord rules/code", and leave "consensus" for=20 describing the actual process by which humans agree on changes to the conco= rd. Anyone else have any thoughts on this subject? Luke (Note Core currently has "consensus" only 249 times, most of which are simp= ly=20 identifier names, so it would be trivial to make this change.)