> 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 <luke@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