From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:41:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201602021941.25382.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDokB9-kxZJ4-xgyo9FsXDpRRLbn7BkZfb_VEDQ_rwNnQg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:38:59 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> In the section
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawi
> ki#formally-defining-consensus
>
> Can we please find another term for the "consensus" here (which is
> often confused with "consensus rules", "consensus code" etc)?
> In BIP99 I used the term "uncontroversial", but I'm happy to change it
> to something else if that helps us moving away from consistently using
> the same term for two related but very different concepts.
> "nearly universal acceptance", "ecosystem-harmonious"...seriously,
> almost anything would be better than keep overloading "consensus"...
"Uncontroversial" doesn't really express the correct idea.
There has been a lot of confusion over "consensus rules/code" anyway, so while
we're on the subject of terminology, I would suggest we change *that* use of
"consensus" instead to clear up the confusion. It would probably work quite
well to rename it to "concord rules/code", and leave "consensus" for
describing the actual process by which humans agree on changes to the concord.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this subject?
Luke
(Note Core currently has "consensus" only 249 times, most of which are simply
identifier names, so it would be trivial to make this change.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-02 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-01 22:53 [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses Luke Dashjr
2016-02-02 5:50 ` Dave Scotese
2016-02-02 7:54 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-02 16:00 ` Dave Scotese
2016-02-02 15:58 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-02-02 17:38 ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-02 19:41 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
[not found] ` <CAGLBAhdFo2pXcDfvPCTpm7ufQuG8z4mHsdoidGkhB3q5SWLj=A@mail.gmail.com>
2016-02-03 0:03 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-03 0:59 ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-02 19:08 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-03-10 0:37 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-02-04 4:15 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-04 17:45 ` Ryan Grant
2016-02-04 21:17 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-05 0:09 ` Ryan Grant
2016-02-02 6:35 Ryan Grant
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=201602021941.25382.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
/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