Dang you are right Thomas! I'm just pretty excited about this proposal and sparking a discussion on this issue.

Here's some updates and thoughts:

Luke said: "BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher requirements"

Possibly true, but maybe not! I think people like having a say especially people with a lot of money on the line or those who are really passionate about Bitcoin
One counter example, I emailed all the sponsors of the workshop conference about their stance in regards to scalability going into the workshop and I got a 47% response rate (with 21% responding with a concrete answer). See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_conference_sponsors/cujg3vc
One example that agrees with you, I talked to the #bitcoin-assets community and they seemed very against participating in future BIPs or even allowing discussion with people outside their community: http://pastebin.com/H5WeNwu3

I'm seeking a historian or political science expert to assist me in this area. If you guys know any I'd be glad to talk to them about working with them.
Many people are complaining about the stake part, and are worried about the ambiguity. I firmly believe that proof of stake is a poor voting mechanism because it gives the most power to those that have a lot of money.

I think proof of stake might work for merchants to prove they have a decent economic stake if they sign with a well-known cold wallet address, but I agree with someone that said merchants may be hesitant about doing that.

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Thomas Kerin <thomas.kerin@gmail.com> wrote:

Normally allocation comes after about 2 weeks or so, not 2 days!

On 5 Sep 2015 10:20 pm, "Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on this proposal. I would welcome that.

Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!

Thanks to all for the discussion!

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go
> through a process like this? Just hard forks?

The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks
should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork
process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted
BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher
requirements.

Luke

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev