Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB3B4DF5 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:04:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1E1144 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0733238A9783; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:03:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160203:dscotese@litmocracy.com::WZVWXKK2voLhC2pn:aqSVt X-Hashcash: 1:25:160203:jtimon@jtimon.cc::DTWdO3OAz6+SdxW9:acK/S X-Hashcash: 1:25:160203:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::wjfHoEFu7PopvHUR:bJwKG From: Luke Dashjr To: Dave Scotese Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:03:31 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> <201602021941.25382.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201602030003.33208.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:04:12 -0000 On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:28:40 PM Dave Scotese wrote: > How about "defining" (rules, code, etc.) Such code and rules define what > bitcoin is. It does require consensus and it ends up being a concord, but > all that can come after the fact (just as it did after bitcoin was first > released to the public). The difficulty is that this BIP needs to refer to three different context of consensus: 1. Consensus (stated) among developers for changes in the BIP Process. 2. Economic consensus (potential and stated) to veto a soft-fork by an intended "firing" of the set of miners if they choose to enforce it. 3. (Actual) consensus in economic adoption of changed rules, to determine the success of a hard-fork (after the fact). 4. The set of rules currently established as (defining) Bitcoin, enforced by an (actual) consensus of economically-relevant nodes. Context 3 can be disambiguated with "adoption consensus", and context 4 with "consensus rules" and/or "consensus protocol", but I don't see a clear solution that covers all four contexts, and even sharing the word "consensus" for them may be confusing. In addition, usage of the word "consensus" for context 4 has proven confusing to users. For example, recently users misinterpreted the "Consensus" label used in context 4 as implying that the idea itself had in fact achieved consensus among some group of decision-makers (similar to context 1, but not necessarily the group being "developers"). I don't know a good way to make this completely clear, so suggestions are more than welcome. Luke