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 62859A67 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 22:02:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f174.google.com (mail-ua0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAC5A79 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 22:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f174.google.com with SMTP id i68so37799634uad.0 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 14:02:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SDyUB+D82SSh1DEksg5peeKI1e3enxtbtVmHN8gmIoI=; b=WXxEsdeF3MrJ8hxjDFnFTvcrXfJYxQ3PqsKMtUR0KhZrtpnYSuaCnuBsgG/wvgYAEt pBW73fv/4+fAviiz+Qr9ymh4yLxLc23NrsHOtFfNwKGqSiPfu7wJwX018wonxwFgAYyk r764By8m14zt69F6qGNCpRnXqFbW/PcftCNcB0fo+1GGMMUhSVduKt9AVNjKDnEA7Fk1 gdImgNC2cpmZ5dPdIIExzRPFxJex6pRYEdZONYYbBQUtIrblJREsNiNAMG/VYcYTcZCE G9tseD98Znne8mWrkfyJ+B7Ie6MI7q43MbL3TqAcsDemBTHlfC67jDx9X82/a7kvvs4s lx9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SDyUB+D82SSh1DEksg5peeKI1e3enxtbtVmHN8gmIoI=; b=luCrc8kD74f3ZOO3Ex5IcyJZB0HIv9YGGWM1NAGAhhR4nu/IkQUMhXLKU3vG4jCi4B DkZ0zyz6neknGVO3Z4luKcdjzQL1vOORmdKlDwG+AHrM/p9YHx4Nrvi7k+RxHU1h6ExN dqTMH+VrAzlui9MUy1ZMnWk+9mA7QpFOi9vlIxTOE9qxSS1j1hsm2TYwrWX6mhH1IM/q QEZxG8e0jGdtSBFc2JTtg0vq7C98vsTE1UgwOPhn/Z25Vu7JlDCAcgq4gf/SF8xBqh58 Vw2JST3Mdr0eSHFMvKhh1uvlM9iTCOaaQhrZ5+Gu02m3+Qk2+5pg8Lg3oRkkDM9P/vYS j7CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nGVNUhQBtnYaJYhXTLvxc8OesALPU6Kf56mwgdzeBQm9GNODTa5mS+EkqB9vzFnqnbOJjI0apLQziYhA== X-Received: by 10.176.18.238 with SMTP id o46mr1746674uac.71.1486245720985; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 14:02:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.49.77 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:02:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201702030024.10232.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201702030024.10232.luke@dashjr.org> From: "t. khan" Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:02:00 -0500 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 15:32:56 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Community Consensus Voting System X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 22:02:02 -0000 --f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > Strongly disagree with buying "votes", or portraying open standards as a > voting process. Also, this depends on address reuse, so it's fundamentally > flawed in design. > The point of this is it's available right now. It's not ideal, but it will work. It doesn't require any code and we can do it today. In case you haven't been paying attention; there's already enough support for Unlimited to prevent SegWit from ever being adopted. Without significant community outreach (which is the purpose of the CCVS) and a compelling solution to max block size, Core as a product is dead. Also, you need to be pretty paranoid to believe that address reuse is an issue in this situation. Note also that the BIP process already has BIP Comments for leaving textual > opinions on the BIP unrelated to stake. See BIP 2 for details on that. > This does nothing for the community in general. Plus there's no way to measure that sort of feedback. - t.k. --f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
Strongly disagree with buying &q= uot;votes", or portraying open standards as a
voting process. Also, this depends on address reuse, so it's fundamenta= lly
flawed in design.

The point of this is = it's available right now. It's not ideal, but it will work. It does= n't require any code and we can do it today.

I= n case you haven't been paying attention; there's already enough su= pport for Unlimited to prevent SegWit from ever being adopted. Without sign= ificant community outreach (which is the purpose of the CCVS) and a compell= ing solution to max block size, Core as a product is dead.

Also, you need to be pretty paranoid to believe that address reuse= is an issue in this situation.

Note also that the BIP process already has BIP Comments for leaving= textual
opinions on the BIP unrelated to stake. See BIP 2 for details on that.
<= /blockquote>

This does nothing for the community in gene= ral. Plus there's no way to measure that sort of feedback.
- t.k.
=C2=A0
--f403043614623f987c0547bb8ccc--