📅 Original date posted:2015-06-29
📝 Original message: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...
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 15:41:11
in reply to nevent1q…9vdh
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 15:41:11Event JSON
{
"id": "f784f028554043c39dac43720b55e11aebb88cb60e421a1594a867ffd1ee1e67",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686152471,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a75acfffe44f9748a902379feb70f856b01a438a0303ea9088c6c0d7a3ff10d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c397f3b258a836dbabe1c971df0fe7e7c8743ae0311e8ab39bd976724968457c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-29\n📝 Original message:On Monday, June 29, 2015 5:43:13 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs.\n\u003e \n\u003e Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the\n\u003e conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or\n\u003e especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think,\n\u003e reasonable uses of the process.\n\u003e \n\u003e E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if\n\u003e you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all!\n\nThen we are to start issuing a new BIP for every node's policy? This has no \nend - though it might make sense for an independent and updated database. \nMixing protocol standards with policy suggestions makes a very risky situation \nwhere one can potentially hold a miner liable for not enforcing the BIP; ie, \ngovernment regulation of Bitcoin itself. I don't think most people want to go \nthere...\n\nLuke",
"sig": "f2f7b7047ec0692984a9cdb86ca75f5d94b5d1166b8ca5ed2721f86ea6d89ee1837bf04cd3c265a88aa9d2f864ea178e5517226af347ddfd499cf5662f69424b"
}