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
|
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 960BAAF3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:01:12 +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 0A223E9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:01:11 +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 9D0CE108039B;
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:00:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:pete@petertodd.org::xRxbOTeW+y1e9v8U:EZia
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:gmaxwell@gmail.com::wx7uRCmbzTlLKHzh:Bpdf
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::smCUiOQd6W15r=j=:CNr2
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:00:49 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.41-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAAS2fgRZh=__VGH8aJq4D9G62ostt20YUafJ66mm7BhdBRKe=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20150629055314.GB502@savin.petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150629055314.GB502@savin.petertodd.org>
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: <201506290600.50913.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 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: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
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: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:01:12 -0000
On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:53:15 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:43:13AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs.
> >
> > Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the
> > conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or
> > especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think,
> > reasonable uses of the process.
> >
> > E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if
> > you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all!
>
> For example, consider Luke-Jr's own BIP19, M-of-N Standard Transactions,
> a non-consensus-critical suggested policy change!
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0019.mediawiki
BIP 19 does not explicitly purport to directly change policy. It defines a
standard way of assembling multisig transactions.
> Anyway, full-RBF has significant impacts for wallet authors and many
> other stakeholders. At minimum it changes how you will want to author
> and (re)author transactions, much like BIP19 does.
This is omitted from the BIP (in fact, it doesn't even have a Specification
section!). No objections to a BIP specifying standards to use for
authoring/modifying transactions for RBF, but it should leave out policy (or
at least constrain it to a strictly non-normative section.
Luke
|
