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 4F157FDD for ; Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:45:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 773FA12D for ; Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:45:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioiz6 with SMTP id z6so70863213ioi.2 for ; Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=53SvmiJCmhI4cXiktIpk5zf5diDo1zC0GLXrsVg5mfc=; b=XRgoNuowB03U6GELtX9GxzxbMPJqTZ6KCDpZVejoyvap3wBxbMvWqAAdFXhn0Wf3xs 94lA/Efjn7weudXOJLSzV0uPUtAe7lhWj7ov/9/5iqyipThRTqJWwaerCwNrzDKTTB9Z KaVOCO/7B4NPfexJTbPD67YDxebpbHx6iQztExrPK7zaxR4L5FRmLGRd4s0W0IE4MfU4 rIPsysWccJoamIIz8B7h83rO9kcBOnYIXBnVeE76uGAziQwlBj89Q8g+bDeMJbxpDt1X jNl6Q5WFhZSIdULXPGVQCWiXN1Gey/SuXNCQCi5zIGEXLsyk3Nsxj0mvWWxGIG1Pq1oK 8XmQ== X-Received: by 10.107.160.67 with SMTP id j64mr2754259ioe.128.1441572315913; Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:45:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asperous2@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.3.33 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:44:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com> <201509042101.11839.luke@dashjr.org> <201509042145.34410.luke@dashjr.org> From: Andy Chase Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:44:56 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nbr816gMKiFF6KR400i1uEGlhSI Message-ID: To: Thomas Kerin , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_SBL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process 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: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 20:45:17 -0000 --001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 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 >> >> --001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dang you are right Thomas! I'm just pretty excited abo= ut this proposal and sparking a discussion on this issue.

Here's some updates and thoughts:
  • Luke said: "= BIPs wouldn't be=C2=A0recognised=C2=A0= as such because nobody cares to meet the higher=C2=A0requirements"
    • Possibly true, but maybe not! I think people like having a sa= y especially people with a lot of money on the line or those who are really= passionate about Bitcoin
    • O= ne counter example, I emailed all the sponsors of the workshop conference a= bout their stance in regards to scalability going into the workshop and I g= ot a 47%=C2=A0response=C2=A0rate (with 21% responding with a concrete answe= r). See here:=C2=A0https://www= .reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_confer= ence_sponsors/cujg3vc
    • O= ne 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:=C2=A0http://pastebin.com/H5WeNwu3
  • I&#= 39;m seeking a historian or political science expert to assist me in this a= rea. If you guys know any I'd be glad to talk to them about working wit= h them.
  • Many people are complaining about the stake part, and are w= orried 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 o= f money.=C2=A0
    • I think proof of stake might work for merchants = to prove they have a decent economic stake if they sign with a well-known c= old wallet address, but I agree with someone that said merchants may be hes= itant about doing that.

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

Normally allocation comes after about 2 week= s or so, not 2 days!

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

Greg: With no other direct comments appe= aring to be inbound I'd like to move forward with this one and get a nu= mber assigned to it. Thanks!

Thanks to all for the= discussion!

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org><= /span> 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 hi= gher
requirements.

Luke


__________________________________________= _____
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0--