public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 01:56:59 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150629055659.GC502@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201506290551.56764.luke@dashjr.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1549 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:51:55AM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:43:13 AM 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!
> 
> 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...

Remember that one of the goals of full-RBF is to explicitly reject the
idea that miners should have any obligation with regard to what they're
mining. I perhaps should say that explicitly in my BIP proposal; I say
it implicitly by pointing out how the BIP *doesn't* define an exact
standard, but rather only an suggests an implementation as a starting
point.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ffad4a87861689c067f5dd3b98b84d8096572c163aa913a

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-29  5:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-29  5:07 [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule Peter Todd
2015-06-29  5:40 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-29  5:43   ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-29  5:51     ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-29  5:56       ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-06-29  5:53     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-29  6:00       ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-29  6:16 ` sickpig
2015-06-30  0:21 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-30  0:51   ` Natanael
2015-06-30  1:00     ` Tom Harding
2015-06-30  1:10       ` Natanael
2015-06-30  1:18         ` Tom Harding
2015-06-30  1:37   ` Peter Todd
2015-06-30 13:12     ` Adam Back
2015-06-30 13:49       ` Chris Pacia
2015-06-30 14:53         ` Peter Todd
2015-06-30 14:02       ` David A. Harding
2015-06-30 16:05       ` Peter Todd
2015-06-30 18:23         ` Chris Pacia

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150629055659.GC502@savin.petertodd.org \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=luke@dashjr.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox