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 960BAAF3 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:01:12 +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 0A223E9 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:01:11 +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 9D0CE108039B; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:00:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:pete@petertodd.org::xRxbOTeW+y1e9v8U:EZia X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:gmaxwell@gmail.com::wx7uRCmbzTlLKHzh:Bpdf X-Hashcash: 1:25:150629:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::smCUiOQd6W15r=j=:CNr2 From: Luke Dashjr To: Peter Todd Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:00:49 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.41-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org> <20150629055314.GB502@savin.petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <20150629055314.GB502@savin.petertodd.org> 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="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201506290600.50913.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 06:01:12 -0000 On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:53:15 AM Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:43:13AM +0000, 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! > > For example, consider Luke-Jr's own BIP19, M-of-N Standard Transactions, > a non-consensus-critical suggested policy change! > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0019.mediawiki BIP 19 does not explicitly purport to directly change policy. It defines a standard way of assembling multisig transactions. > Anyway, full-RBF has significant impacts for wallet authors and many > other stakeholders. At minimum it changes how you will want to author > and (re)author transactions, much like BIP19 does. This is omitted from the BIP (in fact, it doesn't even have a Specification section!). No objections to a BIP specifying standards to use for authoring/modifying transactions for RBF, but it should leave out policy (or at least constrain it to a strictly non-normative section. Luke