From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89A3E516 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:49:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6D4EFB for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:49:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F225209CE; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:49:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Chris Stewart Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:49:38 +0200 Message-ID: <2003815.trufugliNn@strawberry> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:48:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requirement for pseudonymous BIP submissions X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:49:45 -0000 On Saturday, 18 March 2017 16:23:16 CEST Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev=20 wrote: > As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, there is a massive scaling debate > going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while the > other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on the > topic but I won=E2=80=99t discuss them here. The point of the matter is w= e are > seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. I agree with your assessment, the sides are political and picking sides=20 makes people a target. =46or that reason I know that many companies are not picking sides, we=E2= =80=99ve seen=20 some bad stuff happen to companies that did. I=E2=80=99m not convnced it makes sense to use anonymous, but provable, ide= ntities=20 is the way to solve this. Though. I also don=E2=80=99t believe people are rejecting proposals purely based on= the=20 name. What I see is that pratically all proposals are ignored for the time= =20 being becaues we can=E2=80=99t make any changes anyway until we have made a= protocol=20 upgrade and came out stronger. I do agree that bips are seen politically, but not based on the person that= =20 suggests them, but more based on the content being useful for their=20 political side. I am not entirely against pseudonymous submissions, but in that case I thin= k=20 it should be carried by a well known member of the Bitcoin community. This raises the bar somewhat to a point where you have to convince someone= =20 that is already publicly known to propose it with you. =2D-=20 Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel