1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
|
Return-Path: <david.vorick@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9ACB7E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:19:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FFC1188
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c85so1666346wmi.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:19:41 -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;
bh=3xyG2RPoxXU459Cr2lRz9EfjEWDANddOZwgCw74x3m0=;
b=JfbbXJp98/IkzXc5xV58sgJ5IX54B6HUH9c7FCzZPHpa+CKfscxLdrTfC+ArmeaO12
yIhSZlpejSmHtFxRcAqXXB+ZdILnCcpfwBfVEPOnqKTzNsvgMSvY3mbcFKYH8pojnhmz
ZEbVtT+DsicCYJS6rFYyggvjUlyGrsrX19LaZ5cDaHs44zxM13zljLVgAVRo60Jb2lCB
h0ZA9B0KVuU80C2gZE7AX6v00/zHA5WUY1xcUqW1mfMKLxN2PYd4qyZapNlo/U8hsyz+
+RlPPUDp0D8SGWqtsR/FlQIzTi57ytvQD6iBZGbQEt3pX44fTUu3EDyi2lStkCqgwqTP
LKaw==
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;
bh=3xyG2RPoxXU459Cr2lRz9EfjEWDANddOZwgCw74x3m0=;
b=OnMS6XkF95moB5Bk7GrR7z+mumIL18OEea2oDfu9eVX8fsk5dGYDKB/DT5ZwXkZHQu
VDhBFI1QtoWN6sJb3eSqKdj5K4m9MBcv6It3zvduewVQs82fCHIHIXdMQIJpQO1EvuR+
/IjMEiCQTpGyvywojpYvhxy9L+oMSpWDwGnfbLXCklW47D7OqAfLio4GjY9R5Sm/j2Iz
blomU++YMhADfoUhoCk8E3oCL2UpVwX+615EH1AxChDXR0yXOT0xUBf2Kov/e2f99L9i
9P98+BpTWU492KQS1Wydaw3zFYfKycTHmN43X6KhXbYDsW26togr417hLP4Oi0lGsIRo
H7ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kU7t8h2wqFxV1+8lFceMLsDGtq907glAXIkaVgkMa67DdvBasFHjrQedBmNstiiwdC7bfKFgImFVTKUg==
X-Received: by 10.28.132.2 with SMTP id g2mr16364wmd.103.1486077580155; Thu,
02 Feb 2017 15:19:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.92.193 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:19:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.28.92.193 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:19:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJqNg9-aYG62OxTz5RJyx+JJkx-kt2odooZWs92f5teZiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGCNRJqNg9-aYG62OxTz5RJyx+JJkx-kt2odooZWs92f5teZiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:19:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFVRnyqGp9S8HDbHD4Byv26w1afcAorP0JxFq3awMunw6bG=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114423c646225605479466ce
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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
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 <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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:19:42 -0000
--001a114423c646225605479466ce
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I like the idea of having some way for developers to show that they've
given an idea legitimate consideration, as I feel some proposals are often
considered much more in depth before rejection than the proposer realizes,
however I don't think any sort of on-chain system really makes sense. It
complicates things a lot, adds code, incentives, etc. when really all you
care about is some sort of indication of consideration, support, or
rejection.
I also prefer to think of Bitcoin as a system of vetos rather than a system
of approvals. A lot of times changes will be small, highly technical, and
have no visible impact to your every day user. These types of changes don't
really need support outside the devs. Furthermore, I frankly don't give a
crap if we proposal has support from 85% of the participants if there is a
legitimate technical, social, or political reason that it is a bad idea.
And finally, I don't think it should cost money or political power to raise
an objection. A 13yo who has never been seen before should be able to raise
an objection if they indeed have a legitimate objection. Involving money is
almost certainly going to shut down important valid opinions.
And again, I mostly agree with the motivation. It would be good if it were
easier to figure out who had considered a proposal and what their
objections or praises were. But I would like to see that without any
systemization around what is required to pass or fail a proposal, and with
no barrier to entry (such as voting or sending coins or having a recognized
name like 'Bitfury') to provide an opinion.
--001a114423c646225605479466ce
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">I like the idea o=
f having some way for developers to show that they've given an idea leg=
itimate consideration, as I feel some proposals are often considered much m=
ore in depth before rejection than the proposer realizes, however I don'=
;t think any sort of on-chain system really makes sense. It complicates thi=
ngs a lot, adds code, incentives, etc. when really all you care about is so=
me sort of indication of consideration, support, or rejection.</div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=
=3D"auto">I also prefer to think of Bitcoin as a system of vetos rather tha=
n a system of approvals. A lot of times changes will be small, highly techn=
ical, and have no visible impact to your every day user. These types of cha=
nges don't really need support outside the devs. Furthermore, I frankly=
don't give a crap if we proposal has support from 85% of the participa=
nts if there is a legitimate technical, social, or political reason that it=
is a bad idea.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">And finally, I don't think it shoul=
d cost money or political power to raise an objection. A 13yo who has never=
been seen before should be able to raise an objection if they indeed have =
a legitimate objection. Involving money is almost certainly going to shut d=
own important valid opinions.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">=
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">And again, I mostly agree=
with the motivation. It would be good if it were easier to figure out who =
had considered a proposal and what their objections or praises were. But I =
would like to see that without any systemization around what is required to=
pass or fail a proposal, and with no barrier to entry (such as voting or s=
ending coins or having a recognized name like 'Bitfury') to provide=
an opinion.</div></div>
--001a114423c646225605479466ce--
|
