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 63A37BAC for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:57:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148114.authsmtp.net (outmail148114.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.114]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BBAE9 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5T5v3xh045721; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:57:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5T5v003013053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:57:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 01:56:59 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Luke Dashjr Message-ID: <20150629055659.GC502@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org> <201506290540.26019.luke@dashjr.org> <201506290551.56764.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201506290551.56764.luke@dashjr.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: aa26a775-1e23-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAsUEkAaAgsB AmMbW1JeVVp7WWA7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRRll A1geUhpydgZGfX0+ ZERrV3IVDRV4cxd6 RUtJFDgEZnphaTUa TUkOcAdJcANIexZF O1F8UScOLwdSbGoL FQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpg CissFQBab1sPGnYG SggGFD4iWEcUAgs+ IlQqJ0YYG1cUP0Mu eUAqWV8ULhsfYgAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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 05:57:09 -0000 --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrote: > > > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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! >=20 > Then we are to start issuing a new BIP for every node's policy? This has = no=20 > end - though it might make sense for an independent and updated database.= =20 > Mixing protocol standards with policy suggestions makes a very risky situ= ation=20 > where one can potentially hold a miner liable for not enforcing the BIP; = ie,=20 > government regulation of Bitcoin itself. I don't think most people want t= o go=20 > 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. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000ffad4a87861689c067f5dd3b98b84d8096572c163aa913a --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVkN4nXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwZmZhZDRhODc4NjE2ODljMDY3ZjVkZDNiOThiODRkODA5 NjU3MmMxNjNhYTkxM2EvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfuPUggAvo77iZW53BXhH/jTWrqZMCFk q7Md0TiaJ1V1ijeM9x27LaX74aXECQMMZmO+FjrbxlwnnPiJuP4enyZuft6qIjaC F2RqkRGHhUaLSV2ENpoVR7Tdl60t8r+MyVK6rc2ei07xN6zco9XrIC0yFNlSWO+D boS6pNJQ4kocCn05KVohNusUxDmJyPt4r5UrDYKhwePiqYI/pTcKJ2O2LIZepkEM 9LUkRouopluVnvF8SJmKCEzpTSOTD9en/jmSCDl0JBL4lAb1qfSHGNUvggFwriaJ oQeBnIijY9Tib7XAqCrusr6ijdyb7vv/k3NcEWi8yVsVI82EipAk/xTXNu3hVQ== =JWHo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn--