Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.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 --]