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
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
|
Return-Path: <asperous2@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F157FDD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:45:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com
[209.85.223.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 773FA12D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:45:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioiz6 with SMTP id z6so70863213ioi.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:45:16 -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=53SvmiJCmhI4cXiktIpk5zf5diDo1zC0GLXrsVg5mfc=;
b=XRgoNuowB03U6GELtX9GxzxbMPJqTZ6KCDpZVejoyvap3wBxbMvWqAAdFXhn0Wf3xs
94lA/Efjn7weudXOJLSzV0uPUtAe7lhWj7ov/9/5iqyipThRTqJWwaerCwNrzDKTTB9Z
KaVOCO/7B4NPfexJTbPD67YDxebpbHx6iQztExrPK7zaxR4L5FRmLGRd4s0W0IE4MfU4
rIPsysWccJoamIIz8B7h83rO9kcBOnYIXBnVeE76uGAziQwlBj89Q8g+bDeMJbxpDt1X
jNl6Q5WFhZSIdULXPGVQCWiXN1Gey/SuXNCQCi5zIGEXLsyk3Nsxj0mvWWxGIG1Pq1oK
8XmQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.160.67 with SMTP id j64mr2754259ioe.128.1441572315913;
Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: asperous2@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.3.33 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHv+tb5ksyZKp5jLvmzFbD2vBOUrWn6ps80ODECVRqYj8m=PZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
<201509042101.11839.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAxp-m8pgvHqUcmjCt6W5uscgb9ErtiTHdR0-nKU6OVdCE7rXA@mail.gmail.com>
<201509042145.34410.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAxp-m8JW-WOCem6a4RmBk7HOV3cCc02r5r=BkEDyUBu84u4=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHv+tb5ksyZKp5jLvmzFbD2vBOUrWn6ps80ODECVRqYj8m=PZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:44:56 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nbr816gMKiFF6KR400i1uEGlhSI
Message-ID: <CAAxp-m-TYga4RuhZ+Nv2rgrBAcpYPntSXtrwj95Q=p+uF=324w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Kerin <thomas.kerin@gmail.com>,
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_SBL 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 <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: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 20:45:17 -0000
--001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dang you are right Thomas! I'm just pretty excited about this proposal and
sparking a discussion on this issue.
Here's some updates and thoughts:
- Luke said: "BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares
to meet the higher requirements"
- Possibly true, but maybe not! I think people like having a say
especially people with a lot of money on the line or those who are really
passionate about Bitcoin
- One counter example, I emailed all the sponsors of the workshop
conference about their stance in regards to scalability going into the
workshop and I got a 47% response rate (with 21% responding with
a concrete
answer). See here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_conference_sponsors/cujg3vc
- One example that agrees with you, I talked to the #bitcoin-assets
community and they seemed very against participating in future
BIPs or even
allowing discussion with people outside their community:
http://pastebin.com/H5WeNwu3
- I'm seeking a historian or political science expert to assist me in
this area. If you guys know any I'd be glad to talk to them about working
with them.
- Many people are complaining about the stake part, and are worried
about the ambiguity. I firmly believe that proof of stake is a poor voting
mechanism because it gives the most power to those that have a lot of
money.
- I think proof of stake might work for merchants to prove they have
a decent economic stake if they sign with a well-known cold
wallet address,
but I agree with someone that said merchants may be hesitant about doing
that.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Thomas Kerin <thomas.kerin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Normally allocation comes after about 2 weeks or so, not 2 days!
> On 5 Sep 2015 10:20 pm, "Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current
>> state of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting
>> perspective on this proposal. I would welcome that.
>>
>> Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to
>> move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!
>>
>> Thanks to all for the discussion!
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
>>> > I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should
>>> go
>>> > through a process like this? Just hard forks?
>>>
>>> The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only
>>> hardforks
>>> should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the
>>> softfork
>>> process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto
>>> accepted
>>> BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the
>>> higher
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>> Luke
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
--001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Dang you are right Thomas! I'm just pretty excited abo=
ut this proposal and sparking a discussion on this issue.<div><br></div><di=
v>Here's some updates and thoughts:</div><div><ul><li>Luke said: "=
<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">BIPs wouldn't be=C2=A0recognised=C2=A0=
as such because nobody cares to meet the higher=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"=
font-size:12.8px">requirements"</span></li><ul><li><span style=3D"font=
-size:12.8px">Possibly true, but maybe not! I think people like having a sa=
y especially people with a lot of money on the line or those who are really=
passionate about Bitcoin</span></li><li><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">O=
ne counter example, I emailed all the sponsors of the workshop conference a=
bout their stance in regards to scalability going into the workshop and I g=
ot a 47%=C2=A0response=C2=A0rate (with 21% responding with a concrete answe=
r). See here:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3=
isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_conference_sponsors/cujg3vc">https://www=
.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_confer=
ence_sponsors/cujg3vc</a></span></li><li><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">O=
ne example that agrees with you, I talked to the #bitcoin-assets community =
and they seemed very against participating in future BIPs or even allowing =
discussion with people outside their community:=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://past=
ebin.com/H5WeNwu3">http://pastebin.com/H5WeNwu3</a></span></li></ul><li>I&#=
39;m seeking a historian or political science expert to assist me in this a=
rea. If you guys know any I'd be glad to talk to them about working wit=
h them.</li><li>Many people are complaining about the stake part, and are w=
orried about the ambiguity. I firmly believe that proof of stake is a poor =
voting mechanism because it gives the most power to those that have a lot o=
f money.=C2=A0</li><ul><li>I think proof of stake might work for merchants =
to prove they have a decent economic stake if they sign with a well-known c=
old wallet address, but I agree with someone that said merchants may be hes=
itant about doing that.</li></ul></ul></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra=
"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Thomas Ker=
in <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:thomas.kerin@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">thomas.kerin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Normally allocation comes after about 2 week=
s or so, not 2 days! </p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div class=3D"h5">On 5 Sep 2015 10:20 pm, &=
quot;Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"></div></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><div dir=3D"ltr">Okay for sure yeah wr=
iting another proposal that reflects the current state of affairs as people=
see it might provide some interesting perspective on this proposal. I woul=
d welcome that.<div><br></div><div>Greg: With no other direct comments appe=
aring to be inbound I'd like to move forward with this one and get a nu=
mber assigned to it. Thanks!</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks to all for the=
discussion!</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>><=
/span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Friday, September =
04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:<br>
> I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should =
go<br>
> through a process like this? Just hard forks?<br>
<br>
</span>The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only=
hardforks<br>
should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork=
<br>
process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted=
<br>
BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the hi=
gher<br>
requirements.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br></div></div><span class=3D"">__________________________________________=
_____<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0--
|
