Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 374987A9 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:35:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from so254-16.mailgun.net (so254-16.mailgun.net [198.61.254.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E464216B for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:35:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suredbits.com; q=dns/txt; s=mailo; t=1489858532; h=Content-Type: Cc: To: Subject: Message-ID: Date: From: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: Sender; bh=FpBBTKN5MI/MRf+e2TGIxH06v5cVP1xf61pMhUqPuHc=; b=UIxsNzDHySpoRyLSFCB50XSoTZ6WTFAHYPzCOEmdf5osgGAlg7ZJXzx8MD0cLAlcPHPgmB1v XXQTXKyt1hSAa6/677oPZayjKDzIvqhKu2kJUgFy/oTC5SVfv9Pn+vPfh3KG8tuqA/0w0QfG Tp8Q9HZvKW9Lb+ea0n5mxD4xToA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=suredbits.com; s=mailo; q=dns; h=Sender: MIME-Version: In-Reply-To: References: From: Date: Message-ID: Subject: To: Cc: Content-Type; b=wihWQ4BZXS+U6C0CZ+Yy5jw2OG7mPLa7cOkrTpy/t4Z+r7vXvb8ROaxKe+IukIWrCqYCNS lZRdY+MoNpq/AS5bf0B7GHjglty6Ci7Lvn96liW+8u/jlxJQR30IRKMiVKWdaoU60tKWB7h9 2UetlqmVeZz9eFCMbqxmSd6tK4nIE= Sender: chris@suredbits.com X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 198.61.254.16 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI5MGYzNyIsICJiaXRjb2luLWRldkBsaXN0cy5saW51eGZvdW5kYXRpb24ub3JnIiwgIjJjMTQxIl0= Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 58cd6fe3.7f75cc22c970-smtp-out-n03; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:35:31 -0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id g138so58343311itb.0 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:35:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3I+vWyNrJDcypynRtpQdqe1hUgY5fsai12bYctSBVDdwP1J4GC/XKj2NqHuAZX1pr826O4BHr6F/Cicw== X-Received: by 10.36.181.23 with SMTP id v23mr3769390ite.100.1489858530922; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:35:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.137.103 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:35:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Chris Stewart Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:35:30 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Andrew Johnson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045d9a2c807edd054b04b81d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:02:52 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requirement for pseudonymous BIP submissions X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:35:34 -0000 --f403045d9a2c807edd054b04b81d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to thinking "oh great, what's on about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed. I think we need to all recognize we are only humans -- thus susceptible to our emotions influencing our decisions. The notion of identity is an easy way to form judgements for/against an idea before thoroughly vetting it. I also think a by product of this would be to curb reddit/twitter trolls from talking about these protocol changes. It is a much less juicy story if you have to say "9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b created a BIP to propose a block size increase" compared to "Satoshi Nakamoto created a BIP to propose a block size increase". Note about the OP: "The hash =E2=80=9C6f3=E2=80=A69cd0=E2=80=9D is just my..." should really s= ay "The hash '9458...271b' is just my.." Forgot to change the hash this morning. On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Johnson wrote: > I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely > data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to > thinking "oh great, what's on > about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed. > > And vice versa, it prevents people from being more partial to a bad or no= t > so great idea simply because it was posited by someone they hold in high > regard. > > Simple, yet effective. I would actually even go a step further and say > that all BIPs should be done this way as a matter of procedure, I can't > think of a downside. > > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:46 AM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, there is a massive scaling debat= e >> going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while th= e >> other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on th= e >> topic but I won=E2=80=99t discuss them here. The point of the matter is = we are >> seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. The critiques of th= ese >> changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on who is submitting t= he >> BIP -- not what it actually contains. This is the worst thing that can >> happen in a meritocracy. >> >> *Avoiding politicization of technical changes in the future* >> >> I like what Tom Elvis Judor did when he submitted his MimbleWimble white >> paper to the technical community. He submitted it under a pseudonym, ove= r >> TOR, onto a public IRC channel. No ego involved =E2=80=94 only an extrem= ely >> promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a mat= ter >> of time before who they are impedes technical progress of their system. >> >> I propose we move to a pseudonymous BIP system where it is required for >> the author submit the BIP under a pseudonym. For instance, the format co= uld >> be something like this: >> >> BIP: 1337 >> >> Author: 9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com >> >> BIP content down here >> >> The hash =E2=80=9C6f3=E2=80=A69cd0=E2=80=9D is just my github username, = christewart, concatenated >> with some entropy, in this case these bytes: 639c28f610edcaf265b47b06799= 86d >> 10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b >> >> and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail >> can support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appear= s >> it cannot support SHA256 hashes. >> >> There is inconvenience added here. You need to make a new email address, >> you need to make a new github account to submit the BIP. I think it is >> worth the cost -- but am interested in what others think about this. I >> don't think people submitting patches to a BIP should be required to sub= mit >> under a pseudonym -- only the primary author. This means only one person >> has to create the pseudonym. From a quick look at the BIPs list it looks >> like the most BIPs submitted by one person is ~10. This means they would >> have had to create 10 pseudonyms over 8 years -- I think this is >> reasonable. >> >> *What does this give us?* >> >> This gives us a way to avoid politicization of BIPs. This means a BIP ca= n >> be proposed and examined based on it=E2=80=99s technical merits. This le= vels the >> playing field =E2=80=94 making the BIP process even more meritocratic th= an it >> already is. >> >> If you want to claim credit for your BIP after it is accepted, you can >> reveal the preimage of the author hash to prove that you were the origin= al >> author of the BIP. I would need to reveal my github username and =E2=80= =9C >> 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b=E2=80= =9D >> >> *The Future* >> Politicization of bitcoin is only going to grow in the future. We need t= o >> make sure we maintain principled money instead devolving to a system whe= re >> our money is based on a democratic vote =E2=80=94 or the votes of a sele= ct few >> elites. We need to vet claims by =E2=80=9Cauthority figures=E2=80=9D whe= ther it is Jihan >> Wu, Adam Back, Roger Ver, or Greg Maxwell. I assure you they are human = =E2=80=94 >> and prone to mistakes =E2=80=94 just like the rest of us. This seems lik= e a simple >> way to level the playing field. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Chris >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > -- > Andrew Johnson > > --f403045d9a2c807edd054b04b81d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>I think this is an excellent idea.= I consider myself to be extremely=20 data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to=20 thinking "oh great, what's <person I've been annoyed by in = the=20 past> on about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed.
=

I think we need to all recognize we are only humans -- thus susceptible=20 to our emotions influencing our decisions. The notion of identity is an=20 easy way to form judgements for/against an idea before thoroughly=20 vetting it.=C2=A0

I also think a by product of this woul= d=20 be to curb reddit/twitter trolls from talking about these protocol=20 changes. It is a much less juicy story if you have to say "9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b created a BIP to propose a block size increase" compared to "Sat= oshi=20 Nakamoto created a BIP to propose a block size increase".

Note about the OP: <= br>

&q= uot;The hash =E2=80=9C6f3=E2=80=A69cd0=E2=80=9D is just my..." should really = say "The hash '9458...271b' is just my.." Forgot to chang= e the hash this morning.

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Johnson <a= ndrew.johnson83@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extr= emely data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim = to thinking "oh great, what's <person I've been annoyed by = in the past> on about now?" when seeing something posted or propose= d.=C2=A0

And vice versa, it prevents people from b= eing more partial to a bad or not so great idea simply because it was posit= ed by someone they hold in high regard.

Simple, ye= t effective.=C2=A0 I would actually even go a step further and say that all= BIPs should be done this way as a matter of procedure, I can't think o= f a downside.=C2=A0


On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:46 AM Chris Stewart= via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:

As everyone in the Bitcoin space kno= ws, there is a massive scaling=20 debate going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit,=20 while the other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong=20 opinions on the topic but I won=E2=80=99t discuss them here. The point of t= he matter is we are seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. Th= e critiques of these changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on w= ho is submitting the BIP -- not what it actually contains. This is the wors= t thing that can happen in a meritocracy.

Avoiding politicization of t= echnical changes in the future

I like what Tom Elvis Judor did when he submitted his MimbleWimble white=20 paper to the technical community. He submitted it under a pseudonym,=20 over TOR, onto a public IRC channel. No ego involved=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2= =80=8Aonly an extremely promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a=20 matter of time before who they are impedes technical progress of their=20 system.

= I propose we move to a pseudonymous BIP system where it is required for=20 the author submit the BIP under a pseudonym. For instance, the format=20 could be something like this:

BIP: 1337
Author: 9458b= 7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com
BIP content down here

The hash =E2=80=9C6f3=E2=80=A69cd0=E2=80=9D is just my github username, christ= ewart, concatenated=20 with some entropy, in this case these bytes:=20 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b<= /p>

and then= hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail can support = RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appears it cannot sup= port SHA256 hashes.

Th= ere is inconvenience added here. You need to make a new email address, you = need to make a new github account to submit the BIP. I think it is worth th= e cost -- but am interested in what others think about this. I don't th= ink people submitting patches to a BIP should be required to submit under a= pseudonym -- only the primary author. This means only one person has to cr= eate the pseudonym. From a quick look at the BIPs list it looks like the mo= st BIPs submitted by one person is ~10. This means they would have had to c= reate 10 pseudonyms over 8 years -- I think this is reasonable.

What does this give= us?

This gives us a way to avoid politicization of BIPs. This means a BIP can be proposed and examined based on it=E2=80=99s technical merits. This levels = the=20 playing field=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2=80=8Amaking the BIP process even more me= ritocratic than it=20 already is.

If you want to claim credit for your BIP after it is accepted, you can=20 reveal the preimage of the author hash to prove that you were the=20 original author of the BIP. I would need to reveal my github username=20 and =E2=80=9C639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085= ffbb4d4f440b=E2=80=9D

The Future

Politi= cization of bitcoin is only going to grow in the future. We need to make su= re we maintain principled money instead devolving to a system where our money is based on a democratic vote=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2=80=8Aor the votes of a = select few elites. We need to vet claims by =E2=80=9Cauthority figures=E2=80=9D whether it is Ji= han Wu, Adam=20 Back, Roger Ver, or Greg Maxwell. I assure you they are human=E2=80=8A=E2= =80=94=E2=80=8Aand=20 prone to mistakes=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2=80=8Ajust like the rest of us. This = seems like a simple way to level the playing field.

Thoughts?

-Chris



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= tion.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=
--
Andrew Johnson


--f403045d9a2c807edd054b04b81d--