From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A57FE73
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  2 Feb 2016 17:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com (mail-vk0-f52.google.com
	[209.85.213.52])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8276E1A5
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  2 Feb 2016 17:39:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id n1so102547358vkb.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:39:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=OX3Q6aRfh7mBRlLuRMdsDsfKjdjGk6rXe8F3s+wAJhk=;
	b=OB8UJvNXYhtYkfE5bqdkIdo4lqBlqs88FD8cc/yFsxmpXotI2LC8oNx/KR/SsADC5m
	386xfXeAXZ0/D+w8JSYfwoyD+ig7p0U4pbBZhjrce8oqeqSJBqSXLN6Z8yLzHlOWjT4W
	i7D9bEsvGg0XgmljYcbQlkRoqaIuxZO8IGVpE9ZcHY33wWSS31jD4rFNFomy7R5D7e1G
	unAF7fSHyRLPtbUwcMZ/WacWLIlTq5dPSDeEVGgbOwFtKnt6/3EoDW6YxuPonKpozhQM
	vKHXpBRZpCZZG4SjP3nno2CX7ruKpSQPgiVRvqgspx3HBfRfFiJAhWXaIqbEsz4MOj7r
	tPeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=OX3Q6aRfh7mBRlLuRMdsDsfKjdjGk6rXe8F3s+wAJhk=;
	b=RaynOECo+GudKobfKS++7J+IhglEmvQ0is4sR/CmD9VEn78HDxley0GGd/Nitc3TM5
	jokLez0RtfxOblGe/aK5qry+WfBmmnPX40qQGoJ2NBxx6z4iOOiooSCJwH2Ux2iA/mNc
	LAiL727MBuDcq1tXSkxqoDXqIogvl9kEs/G4dF6kA31X6PiBqTU4VA+ISaVC4ssuzm/o
	UFfX5xxN84jEzETHJ5fahZmAwKbgmCVv0c7shhe6sy3eXp//cpnvl0SigVutAkH7ZNI4
	FhwedJnA24JIlPci+eUqcAokMyHk/kTCRRvmCw18v1M9Opc84pBWdldr3GXdjn7jzLeH
	t8ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQqxjDLaNLh9p170e2pUyKRDcJrRJDNUIbQ/0jy08xGD0zgYX+E9J2RHnhK+1wd95xseMYOOSqIh2q7Pg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.180.213 with SMTP id d204mr18926676vkf.80.1454434739767; 
	Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:38:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:38:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDokB9-kxZJ4-xgyo9FsXDpRRLbn7BkZfb_VEDQ_rwNnQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
	and copyright licenses
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:39:01 -0000

In the section https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki#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"...