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
|
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 9F00A11E8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jorge =?utf-8?q?Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
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>
<CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDokB9-kxZJ4-xgyo9FsXDpRRLbn7BkZfb_VEDQ_rwNnQg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDokB9-kxZJ4-xgyo9FsXDpRRLbn7BkZfb_VEDQ_rwNnQg@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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: 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.)
|
