bip-biprevised: Add Rationale explaining how-it-is

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/bip-biprevised.mediawiki b/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
index a4746de..29de31a 100644
--- a/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
@@ -64,6 +64,10 @@ Why aren't <x> included in the economy?
 * Exchanges are not included in the economy, because they merely provide services of connecting the merchants and users who wish to trade. Even if all exchanges were to defect from Bitcoin, those merchants and users can always trade directly and/or establish their own exchanges.
 * Developers are not included in the economy, since they merely write code, and it is up to others to decide to use that code or not.
 
+But they're doing something important and have invested a lot in Bitcoin! Shouldn't they be included in such an important decision?
+
+* This BIP does not aim to address what "should" be the basis of decisions. Such a statement, no matter how perfect in its justification, would be futile without some way to enforce it. The BIP process does not aim to be a kind of "governance" of Bitcoin, merely to provide a collaborative repository for proposing and providing information on standards. It can only hope to achieve accuracy in regard to the "Status" field by striving to reflect the reality of *how things actually are*, rather than *how they should be*.
+
 Why can the economic consensus veto a soft-fork?
 
 * The group of miners is determined by the consensus rules for the dynamic-membership multi-party signature (for Bitcoin, the proof-of-work algorithm), which can be modified with a hard-fork. Thus, if the same conditions required to modify this group are met in opposition to a soft-fork, the miner majority supporting the soft-fork is effectively void because the economic consensus can decide to replace them with another group of would-be miners who do not support the soft-fork.