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 5A725BAC for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:52:58 +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 D45A51C4 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:52:57 +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 76E6F108039B; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:51:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:gmaxwell@gmail.com::SZJhX/O09AS2PTKD:Z2zW X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::00ta6K/EdX/TQCPL:c5SAn From: Luke Dashjr To: Gregory Maxwell Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:51:55 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.41-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org> <201506290540.26019.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: 7bit Message-Id: <201506290551.56764.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:52:58 -0000 On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:43:13 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr 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! Then we are to start issuing a new BIP for every node's policy? This has no end - though it might make sense for an independent and updated database. Mixing protocol standards with policy suggestions makes a very risky situation where one can potentially hold a miner liable for not enforcing the BIP; ie, government regulation of Bitcoin itself. I don't think most people want to go there... Luke