Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-06-29 š Original message:On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at ...
š
Original date posted:2015-06-29
š Original message:On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:51:55AM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:43:13 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs.
> >
> > Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the
> > conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or
> > especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think,
> > reasonable uses of the process.
> >
> > E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if
> > you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all!
>
> Then we are to start issuing a new BIP for every node's policy? This has no
> end - though it might make sense for an independent and updated database.
> Mixing protocol standards with policy suggestions makes a very risky situation
> where one can potentially hold a miner liable for not enforcing the BIP; ie,
> government regulation of Bitcoin itself. I don't think most people want to go
> there...
Remember that one of the goals of full-RBF is to explicitly reject the
idea that miners should have any obligation with regard to what they're
mining. I perhaps should say that explicitly in my BIP proposal; I say
it implicitly by pointing out how the BIP *doesn't* define an exact
standard, but rather only an suggests an implementation as a starting
point.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ffad4a87861689c067f5dd3b98b84d8096572c163aa913a
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150629/e2feb2ae/attachment.sig>;
š Original message:On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:51:55AM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:43:13 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs.
> >
> > Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the
> > conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or
> > especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think,
> > reasonable uses of the process.
> >
> > E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if
> > you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all!
>
> Then we are to start issuing a new BIP for every node's policy? This has no
> end - though it might make sense for an independent and updated database.
> Mixing protocol standards with policy suggestions makes a very risky situation
> where one can potentially hold a miner liable for not enforcing the BIP; ie,
> government regulation of Bitcoin itself. I don't think most people want to go
> there...
Remember that one of the goals of full-RBF is to explicitly reject the
idea that miners should have any obligation with regard to what they're
mining. I perhaps should say that explicitly in my BIP proposal; I say
it implicitly by pointing out how the BIP *doesn't* define an exact
standard, but rather only an suggests an implementation as a starting
point.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ffad4a87861689c067f5dd3b98b84d8096572c163aa913a
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150629/e2feb2ae/attachment.sig>;