Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:59:33 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <92b43444-7048-4882-ab06-4a34616b2c46n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <82a37738-a17b-4a8c-9651-9e241118a363@murch.one>
References: <e4048607-64b7-4772-b74e-4566a4b50bc0n@googlegroups.com>
 <9288df7b-f2e9-4106-b843-c1ff8f8a62a3@dashjr.org>
 <42e6c1d1d39d811e2fe7c4c5ce6e09c705bd3dbb.camel@timruffing.de>
 <d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n@googlegroups.com>
 <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
 <f9435999-42df-46b5-86e2-7ba0336a9bf2@mattcorallo.com>
 <ZgWRu32FXzqqg69V@console>
 <9ebd08b0-7680-4896-aad3-1c225b764bcb@mattcorallo.com>
 <59fa94cea6f70e02b1ce0da07ae230670730171c.camel@timruffing.de>
 <4pVUOTuyyAbTJB_rTGNWS_TuR39NS5OoJvaSCyqjezAg265kPnCjXvqohFmWQ5ITb7XFZCJie-uV1AG3pVCI5H54dDuFP4OyomC9yiWDot0=@wuille.net>
 <Zg4z7P+MKzEfCkdM@erisian.com.au>
 <0bc47189-f9a6-400b-823c-442974c848d5@murch.one>
 <82a37738-a17b-4a8c-9651-9e241118a363@murch.one>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Time for an update to BIP2?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12138_2041691350.1726732075128"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_12138_2041691350.1726732075128
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128"

------=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Murch,

I had a full review on the updatses to BIP 2, and overall it sounds=20
reasonable.

I have only 3 observations, to be addressed or not.

About the "What is the scope of the BIPs repository ?"

"The BIPs repository is focused on information and technologies that aim to=
=20
support and expand the utility of the bitcoin
currency. Related topics that are of interest to the Bitcoin community may=
=20
be acceptable. Proposals that are in direct
contradiction to this mission, e.g. by undermining fungibility,=20
facilitating unrelated protocols, using Bitcoin for data
storage, or hobbling mining decentralization, may be considered=20
out-of-scope."

There is no need to strictly define bitcoin mission in any fashion...Even=
=20
if you go back to Satoshi's writings far more than
the currency aspect of bitcoin was designed for with the inclusion of a=20
wide bitcoin script programming languages, rather
than just signature verification [0]. Even historically, if you go back to=
=20
all the BIPs which have been discussed during
the block size wars (bip 103, bip 104, bip 105, etc) some of those BIPs in=
=20
themselves are ways to articulate the technical
debate about scalability, and the impact or not on mining decentralization.

Same if you take fungibility, is BIP 431 good for fungibility ? No words=20
inside this BIP about the impact to have policy
only semantics encoded in the nVersion field, forever marked in the=20
transaction logs, and as such eventual protocol
semantics leaked by the bit setting as such affecting the fungibility of=20
the coins. Should have all the BIPs in the future
to have a mandatory privacy section ? I don't know, it's a question worthy=
=20
to be raised.

If I have a suggestion it would be to remove the "mission" term. It is=20
implying that Bitcoin has some kind of eschatologic
mission, and sooner or latter, we'll be back to what did happen during the=
=20
block size war, people doing whitepaper
fundamentalism and someone like CSW or a faction pretending to be "Satoshi=
=20
Vision", while being to have been proven
a fraud so far in front of a public court of justice [1].

Bitcoin has a rich enough technical and cultural history in itself in case=
=20
of community's lack of consensus.

"Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to the BIP=20
editors."

I can see why you could reach out off-list to the BIP editors, e.g for=20
security reasons if you wish some clarification
on an old BIP, and you don't have the level of experience to know who to=20
reach out in the ecosystem to ask more.

Though apart of that, I would discourage off-list BIP-related=20
correspondence with the BIP editors.

Is there any other good reason ? I cannot see any, if it's for complaining=
=20
that BIP editors are not taking fast
enough administrative and editorial tasks, I think it should be done on=20
some public communication channels.

About the "BIP Editors" workflow.

I think there should be explicitely a public process detailed to nominate=
=20
new BIP editors in the presence of some
fragment of the community being unsatisfied with the current way of BIP=20
editors work is done.

Let's learn from what did happen with the taproot activation years ago,=20
when there was only one BIP editor, and
it was claimed by some he was too slow in assigning a BIP number to the=20
activation logic [2].

Finally, I think it could be good to have a historical note pointing that=
=20
the BIP process was originally authored
by Amir Taaki in September 2011, at a time he was working on a=20
consensus-compatible re-implementation of a bitcoin
full node, which has become libbitcoin and which was not necessarily=20
affected by all the sec issues of core over
the recent years.

Best,
Antoine
ots hash: a3efafd1b7a49306a7f7683ae142af088f9f31955a2eaa9bf1d8fd6fcae1c372

[0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D195.msg1611#msg1611
[1] Indeed, there has been an appeal of the justice decision by CSW. If in=
=20
appeal there is a need to have more
    technical experts in defense of the historical devs quoted / against=20
CSW, I'm here.
[2]=20
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018835.h=
tml
Le mercredi 18 septembre 2024 =C3=A0 19:30:16 UTC+1, Murch a =C3=A9crit :

> Hey y=E2=80=99all,
>
> Continuing the conversation about an update to the BIP process, I have=20
> clobbered together a draft proposal.
>
> It aims to make determinations on all the topics that were covered by=20
> BIP=E2=80=AF2, but tries to address many of the pain points brought up in=
 the=20
> discussion earlier this year, the BIP Process Wishlist, and issues=20
> surfaced by sighting the open pull requests.
>
> The main changes compared to BIP=E2=80=AF2 are:
>
> - Sunset the comments system
> - Rework the workflow
> - Use only four Status values (Preliminary, Ready, Active, and=20
> Abandoned) instead of nine, clarify the meaning of statuses
> - Replace the "Standards Track" BIP type with the "Specification" BIP=20
> type, and update definitions for all BIP types
> - Declare Process BIPs to be living documents
> - Discourage adoption tracking in the BIPs repository
> - Introduce Revision header and Change Log to record changes to BIPs=20
> after they have been recommended for adoption
> - Update description of repository=E2=80=99s scope
> - Reduce BIP Editor role to checking editorial and formal criteria,=20
> reassigning judgment calls to authors and audience
>
> I=E2=80=99m open to reconsider most aspects of this proposal, provided=20
> convincing arguments and tenable alternatives. Please consider relevant=
=20
> rationale provided in the footnotes when suggesting changes.
>
> Please especially take note of the description of the repository=E2=80=99=
s scope.
>
> You can find the draft here:
> https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2
>
> I may also open a pull request to the main BIPs repository later this=20
> week assuming this draft is well-received.
>
> Best,
> Murch
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/92b43444-7048-4882-ab06-4a34616b2c46n%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Murch,<br /><br />I had a full review on the updatses to BIP 2, and over=
all it sounds reasonable.<br /><br />I have only 3 observations, to be addr=
essed or not.<br /><br />About the "What is the scope of the BIPs repositor=
y ?"<br /><br />"The BIPs repository is focused on information and technolo=
gies that aim to support and expand the utility of the bitcoin<br />currenc=
y. Related topics that are of interest to the Bitcoin community may be acce=
ptable. Proposals that are in direct<br />contradiction to this mission, e.=
g. by undermining fungibility, facilitating unrelated protocols, using Bitc=
oin for data<br />storage, or hobbling mining decentralization, may be cons=
idered out-of-scope."<br /><br />There is no need to strictly define bitcoi=
n mission in any fashion...Even if you go back to Satoshi's writings far mo=
re than<br />the currency aspect of bitcoin was designed for with the inclu=
sion of a wide bitcoin script programming languages, rather<br />than just =
signature verification [0]. Even historically, if you go back to all the BI=
Ps which have been discussed during<br />the block size wars (bip 103, bip =
104, bip 105, etc) some of those BIPs in themselves are ways to articulate =
the technical<br />debate about scalability, and the impact or not on minin=
g decentralization.<br /><br />Same if you take fungibility, is BIP 431 goo=
d for fungibility ? No words inside this BIP about the impact to have polic=
y<br />only semantics encoded in the nVersion field, forever marked in the =
transaction logs, and as such eventual protocol<br />semantics leaked by th=
e bit setting as such affecting the fungibility of the coins. Should have a=
ll the BIPs in the future<br />to have a mandatory privacy section ? I don'=
t know, it's a question worthy to be raised.<br /><br />If I have a suggest=
ion it would be to remove the "mission" term. It is implying that Bitcoin h=
as some kind of eschatologic<br />mission, and sooner or latter, we'll be b=
ack to what did happen during the block size war, people doing whitepaper<b=
r />fundamentalism and someone like CSW or a faction pretending to be "Sato=
shi Vision", while being to have been proven<br />a fraud so far in front o=
f a public court of justice [1].<br /><br />Bitcoin has a rich enough techn=
ical and cultural history in itself in case of community's lack of consensu=
s.<br /><br />"Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd)=
 to the BIP editors."<br /><br />I can see why you could reach out off-list=
 to the BIP editors, e.g for security reasons if you wish some clarificatio=
n<br />on an old BIP, and you don't have the level of experience to know wh=
o to reach out in the ecosystem to ask more.<br /><br />Though apart of tha=
t, I would discourage off-list BIP-related correspondence with the BIP edit=
ors.<br /><br />Is there any other good reason ? I cannot see any, if it's =
for complaining that BIP editors are not taking fast<br />enough administra=
tive and editorial tasks, I think it should be done on some public communic=
ation channels.<br /><br />About the "BIP Editors" workflow.<br /><br />I t=
hink there should be explicitely a public process detailed to nominate new =
BIP editors in the presence of some<br />fragment of the community being un=
satisfied with the current way of BIP editors work is done.<br /><br />Let'=
s learn from what did happen with the taproot activation years ago, when th=
ere was only one BIP editor, and<br />it was claimed by some he was too slo=
w in assigning a BIP number to the activation logic [2].<br /><br />Finally=
, I think it could be good to have a historical note pointing that the BIP =
process was originally authored<br />by Amir Taaki in September 2011, at a =
time he was working on a consensus-compatible re-implementation of a bitcoi=
n<br />full node, which has become libbitcoin and which was not necessarily=
 affected by all the sec issues of core over<br />the recent years.<br /><b=
r />Best,<br />Antoine<br />ots hash: a3efafd1b7a49306a7f7683ae142af088f9f3=
1955a2eaa9bf1d8fd6fcae1c372<br /><br />[0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.ph=
p?topic=3D195.msg1611#msg1611<br />[1] Indeed, there has been an appeal of =
the justice decision by CSW. If in appeal there is a need to have more<br /=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 technical experts in defense of the historical devs quoted /=
 against CSW, I'm here.<br />[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermai=
l/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018835.html<br /><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div d=
ir=3D"auto" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le mercredi 18 septembre 2024 =C3=A0 19:30=
:16 UTC+1, Murch a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br/></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 20=
4); padding-left: 1ex;">Hey y=E2=80=99all,
<br>
<br>Continuing the conversation about an update to the BIP process, I have=
=20
<br>clobbered together a draft proposal.
<br>
<br>It aims to make determinations on all the topics that were covered by=
=20
<br>BIP=E2=80=AF2, but tries to address many of the pain points brought up =
in the=20
<br>discussion earlier this year, the BIP Process Wishlist, and issues=20
<br>surfaced by sighting the open pull requests.
<br>
<br>The main changes compared to BIP=E2=80=AF2 are:
<br>
<br>- Sunset the comments system
<br>- Rework the workflow
<br>- Use only four Status values (Preliminary, Ready, Active, and=20
<br>Abandoned) instead of nine, clarify the meaning of statuses
<br>- Replace the &quot;Standards Track&quot; BIP type with the &quot;Speci=
fication&quot; BIP=20
<br>type, and update definitions for all BIP types
<br>- Declare Process BIPs to be living documents
<br>- Discourage adoption tracking in the BIPs repository
<br>- Introduce Revision header and Change Log to record changes to BIPs=20
<br>after they have been recommended for adoption
<br>- Update description of repository=E2=80=99s scope
<br>- Reduce BIP Editor role to checking editorial and formal criteria,=20
<br>reassigning judgment calls to authors and audience
<br>
<br>I=E2=80=99m open to reconsider most aspects of this proposal, provided=
=20
<br>convincing arguments and tenable alternatives. Please consider relevant=
=20
<br>rationale provided in the footnotes when suggesting changes.
<br>
<br>Please especially take note of the description of the repository=E2=80=
=99s scope.
<br>
<br>You can find the draft here:
<br><a href=3D"https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2" target=3D"_blan=
k" rel=3D"nofollow" data-saferedirecturl=3D"https://www.google.com/url?hl=
=3Dfr&amp;q=3Dhttps://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2&amp;source=3Dgmai=
l&amp;ust=3D1726818412843000&amp;usg=3DAOvVaw02Y7Nx4XU-J8Yy-CtNVmpw">https:=
//github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2</a>
<br>
<br>I may also open a pull request to the main BIPs repository later this=
=20
<br>week assuming this draft is well-received.
<br>
<br>Best,
<br>Murch
<br></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/bitcoindev/92b43444-7048-4882-ab06-4a34616b2c46n%40googlegroups.=
com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msg=
id/bitcoindev/92b43444-7048-4882-ab06-4a34616b2c46n%40googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br />

------=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128--

------=_Part_12138_2041691350.1726732075128--