MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: asperous2@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAHv+tb5ksyZKp5jLvmzFbD2vBOUrWn6ps80ODECVRqYj8m=PZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
	<201509042101.11839.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAxp-m8pgvHqUcmjCt6W5uscgb9ErtiTHdR0-nKU6OVdCE7rXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201509042145.34410.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAxp-m8JW-WOCem6a4RmBk7HOV3cCc02r5r=BkEDyUBu84u4=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHv+tb5ksyZKp5jLvmzFbD2vBOUrWn6ps80ODECVRqYj8m=PZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:44:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAxp-m-TYga4RuhZ+Nv2rgrBAcpYPntSXtrwj95Q=p+uF=324w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Kerin <thomas.kerin@gmail.com>,
	bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process
Precedence: list

--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 <thomas.kerin@gmail.com> 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 <luke@dashjr.org> 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

<div dir=3D"ltr">Dang you are right Thomas! I&#39;m just pretty excited abo=
ut this proposal and sparking a discussion on this issue.<div><br></div><di=
v>Here&#39;s some updates and thoughts:</div><div><ul><li>Luke said: &quot;=
<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">BIPs wouldn&#39;t be=C2=A0recognised=C2=A0=
as such because nobody cares to meet the higher=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"=
font-size:12.8px">requirements&quot;</span></li><ul><li><span style=3D"font=
-size:12.8px">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</span></li><li><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">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=A0<a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3=
isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_conference_sponsors/cujg3vc">https://www=
.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_confer=
ence_sponsors/cujg3vc</a></span></li><li><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">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=A0<a href=3D"http://past=
ebin.com/H5WeNwu3">http://pastebin.com/H5WeNwu3</a></span></li></ul><li>I&#=
39;m seeking a historian or political science expert to assist me in this a=
rea. If you guys know any I&#39;d be glad to talk to them about working wit=
h them.</li><li>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</li><ul><li>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.</li></ul></ul></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra=
"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Thomas Ker=
in <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:thomas.kerin@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">thomas.kerin@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Normally allocation comes after about 2 week=
s or so, not 2 days! </p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div class=3D"h5">On 5 Sep 2015 10:20 pm, &=
quot;Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"></div></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><div dir=3D"ltr">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.<div><br></div><div>Greg: With no other direct comments appe=
aring to be inbound I&#39;d like to move forward with this one and get a nu=
mber assigned to it. Thanks!</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks to all for the=
 discussion!</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Friday, September =
04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:<br>
&gt; I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should =
go<br>
&gt; through a process like this? Just hard forks?<br>
<br>
</span>The process loses meaning if it doesn&#39;t reflect reality. So only=
 hardforks<br>
should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork=
<br>
process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted=
<br>
BIPs wouldn&#39;t be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the hi=
gher<br>
requirements.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br></div></div><span class=3D"">__________________________________________=
_____<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a1140ed9ccee8ba051f1a35a0--