📅 Original date posted:2015-09-06
📝 Original message: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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150906/574ed608/attachment.html>;
Andy Chase [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hg…2pv20
2023-06-07 17:39:41
in reply to nevent1q…fx76
Author Public Key
npub1hgz0f5ghpavn49u2h2za7464v9w02fd534nx5w268plwr06zal3s32pv20Published at
2023-06-07 17:39:41Event JSON
{
"id": "daf2e15cc0bc58207f78ffbaa824c0163f636e230a5cd5586f7617c72357c2bd",
"pubkey": "ba04f4d1170f593a978aba85df5755615cf525b48d666a395a387ee1bf42efe3",
"created_at": 1686159581,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9c96b271d28066e4cb9eb50131a2ba9c23f5c1ad1af3e01fa5e76e13c28699d2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2e08c008bd417f958503ebde0cdf0a65330f2c1d367e23e87a04024ca83df3ac",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ba04f4d1170f593a978aba85df5755615cf525b48d666a395a387ee1bf42efe3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-06\n📝 Original message:Dang you are right Thomas! I'm just pretty excited about this proposal and\nsparking a discussion on this issue.\n\nHere's some updates and thoughts:\n\n - Luke said: \"BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares\n to meet the higher requirements\"\n - Possibly true, but maybe not! I think people like having a say\n especially people with a lot of money on the line or those who are really\n passionate about Bitcoin\n - One counter example, I emailed all the sponsors of the workshop\n conference about their stance in regards to scalability going into the\n workshop and I got a 47% response rate (with 21% responding with\na concrete\n answer). See here:\n https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3isqmf/which_of_the_scaling_bitcoin_conference_sponsors/cujg3vc\n - One example that agrees with you, I talked to the #bitcoin-assets\n community and they seemed very against participating in future\nBIPs or even\n allowing discussion with people outside their community:\n http://pastebin.com/H5WeNwu3\n - I'm seeking a historian or political science expert to assist me in\n this area. If you guys know any I'd be glad to talk to them about working\n with them.\n - Many people are complaining about the stake part, and are worried\n about the ambiguity. I firmly believe that proof of stake is a poor voting\n mechanism because it gives the most power to those that have a lot of\n money.\n - I think proof of stake might work for merchants to prove they have\n a decent economic stake if they sign with a well-known cold\nwallet address,\n but I agree with someone that said merchants may be hesitant about doing\n that.\n\n\nOn Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Thomas Kerin \u003cthomas.kerin at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Normally allocation comes after about 2 weeks or so, not 2 days!\n\u003e On 5 Sep 2015 10:20 pm, \"Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current\n\u003e\u003e state of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting\n\u003e\u003e perspective on this proposal. I would welcome that.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to\n\u003e\u003e move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Thanks to all for the discussion!\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should\n\u003e\u003e\u003e go\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e through a process like this? Just hard forks?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only\n\u003e\u003e\u003e hardforks\n\u003e\u003e\u003e should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e softfork\n\u003e\u003e\u003e process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto\n\u003e\u003e\u003e accepted\n\u003e\u003e\u003e BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e higher\n\u003e\u003e\u003e requirements.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Luke\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150906/574ed608/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "f135db400060cc96bc4767dcb90a901dae1d834abe516f288b506f238f21e30df9128f2c7ef1e1ef12823131e9f86a15533fef3e371153e3dc6c7ccee7aedcd7"
}