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 <[email protected]> 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
