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 3A57FE73 for ; 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 ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id n1so102547358vkb.3 for ; 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: References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:38:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gavin Andresen 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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"...