> Any such a BIP like this needs to > document the natural forces involved in real-world acceptance, not try to lay > down "rules" that people are expected to follow.
That's my goal: to take the hodgepodge of we already use for acceptance, and apply rules that allow true acceptance to be identified in a clearer way. If people don't follow the "rules" then the system simply won't work, this is mentioned in the last section. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > On Friday, September 04, 2015 12:30:50 AM Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Here's a BIP. I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of > > governance, but I’m moderately serious about it. > > Sigh. There is *no governance at all*. Any such a BIP like this needs to > document the natural forces involved in real-world acceptance, not try to > lay > down "rules" that people are expected to follow. > > For hardforks, that means economic consensus. For softforks, miner > majority. > For basically anything else, real-world implementation and use (by any > significant quantity of people). > > Luke >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
