path: root/37/974da68c9aedb2d5aa7501b4fc3ee492d8433b

Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10205C0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 10:55:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9B082127
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 10:55:10 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org CC9B082127
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=dLSbz/kL
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.604
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id wJpkDVwtuoki
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 10:55:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpa40.poczta.onet.pl (smtpa40.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.40])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80858210C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 10:55:08 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org E80858210C
Received: from pmq6v.m5r2.onet (pmq6v.m5r2.onet [10.174.33.77])
 by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4SSCJN0Dhhzlg8Fw;
 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 11:55:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
 t=1699700100; bh=ijCu984QePX4Fu6nQ68xTzxBAppbvqinFVRdS/gNWak=;
 h=From:To:Date:Subject:From;
 b=dLSbz/kLaBU3PqD98n/ghRg2vM9hC6SHLAGy1djC1Ml9M235omAky9GFxGj57Q/Vt
 ny2LbH/E47kOu/zCEk+HgqJ0p555JMuvWZonyI8PLXe4GQ4GgJsnAwdKvxR2wwUh8h
 EiveCtVvnJ2X73yIoyiYSL4HDo1P2u9iDCGOmmpk=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============4439648803092852745=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from [5.173.250.33] by pmq6v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 11:55:00 +0100
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 11:54:56 +0100
Message-Id: <102858647-4a24d51eb95c76b443567edd0852c411@pmq6v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;5.173.250.33;PL;2
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 15:08:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Future of the bitcoin-dev mailing list
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 10:55:11 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============4439648803092852745==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What about using Signet, or some separate P2P network, to handle all of tha=
t?
=C2=A0
1. All e-mails could be sent in a pure P2P way, just each "mailing list nod=
e" would receive it, and include to its mempool.
2. The inclusion of some message would be decided by signing a block. Moder=
ators would pick the proper messages, and publish them by broadcasting a ne=
w block to all nodes.
3. Each message will be signed by some public key. It could be changed each=
 time, or even derived from some HD wallet. Only those owning "master publi=
c keys" would know, which messages were sent by the same person.
4. The time of the block could be much longer than 10 minutes. It could be =
for example one hour, one day, or even longer. Or, the commitment to all of=
 that could be just included "every sometimes" to the existing Signet chain=
, because it would take no additional on-chain bytes, and can be easily don=
e in the coinbase transaction.
5. If there will be too much spam in the mempool, then hashcash-based Proof=
 of Work can be used to filter messages. Instead of fee-based filtering, it=
 could be Proof-of-Work-based filtering. Even better: because of "master pu=
blic keys", the regular participants could be allowed anyway, without provi=
ding additional Proof of Work. Their signature would be sufficient in that =
case.
6. The code is almost there. Maybe there are even altcoins, designed specif=
ically for storing data, and we could just use them?
7. This kind of decision would push things like Silent Payments forward. Be=
cause then, you could develop scanners, to know, who wrote which message. Y=
ou could enter some "master public key", scan the whole chain, and find out=
 all messages written by that particular participant.
8. It would push commitments forward. Because then, it would be possible to=
 send some message to the "P2P mailing list network", and reveal it later. =
Of course, it is not mandatory to accept commitments at all, which means, t=
hey could be easily disabled, if they would be misused. Or we could start w=
ith no commitments, and introduce them later if needed.
9. Because Signet challenge can contain some multisig, or even some Taproot=
 address, there will be no issue with using the same password to access the=
 moderation panel. Also, in that case, it is possible to prove later, which=
 moderator accepted which message. And also, it is still possible to use so=
me shared key, if revealing that is not desirable, or even it is possible t=
o easily reach "approved by all moderators" messages, because their Schnorr=
 signatures could be combined. Also, any K-of-N multisig can be battle-test=
ed in that way.
=C2=A0
So, I can see two options: reusing some existing P2P network, or making a n=
ew one, designed specifically for handling mailing list messages in a pure =
P2P way. I guess we can try some existing chains first, and if there is no =
promising altcoin, or if we don't want to be associated with any altcoin, t=
hen our own Signet-like network could solve it.
--===============4439648803092852745==
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>
<div>What about using Signet, or some separate P2P network, to handle all o=
f that?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>1. All e-mails could be sent in a pure P2P way, just each "mailing lis=
t node" would receive it, and include to its mempool.<br />2. The inclusion=
 of some message would be decided by signing a block. Moderators would pick=
 the proper messages, and publish them by broadcasting a new block to all n=
odes.<br />3. Each message will be signed by some public key. It could be c=
hanged each time, or even derived from some HD wallet. Only those owning "m=
aster public keys" would know, which messages were sent by the same person.=
<br />4. The time of the block could be much longer than 10 minutes. It cou=
ld be for example one hour, one day, or even longer. Or, the commitment to =
all of that could be just included "every sometimes" to the existing Signet=
 chain, because it would take no additional on-chain bytes, and can be easi=
ly done in the coinbase transaction.<br />5. If there will be too much spam=
 in the mempool, then hashcash-based Proof of Work can be used to filter me=
ssages. Instead of fee-based filtering, it could be Proof-of-Work-based fil=
tering. Even better: because of "master public keys", the regular participa=
nts could be allowed anyway, without providing additional Proof of Work. Th=
eir signature would be sufficient in that case.<br />6. The code is almost =
there. Maybe there are even altcoins, designed specifically for storing dat=
a, and we could just use them?<br />7. This kind of decision would push thi=
ngs like Silent Payments forward. Because then, you could develop scanners,=
 to know, who wrote which message. You could enter some "master public key"=
, scan the whole chain, and find out all messages written by that particula=
r participant.<br />8. It would push commitments forward. Because then, it =
would be possible to send some message to the "P2P mailing list network", a=
nd reveal it later. Of course, it is not mandatory to accept commitments at=
 all, which means, they could be easily disabled, if they would be misused.=
 Or we could start with no commitments, and introduce them later if needed.=
<br />9. Because Signet challenge can contain some multisig, or even some T=
aproot address, there will be no issue with using the same password to acce=
ss the moderation panel. Also, in that case, it is possible to prove later,=
 which moderator accepted which message. And also, it is still possible to =
use some shared key, if revealing that is not desirable, or even it is poss=
ible to easily reach "approved by all moderators" messages, because their S=
chnorr signatures could be combined. Also, any K-of-N multisig can be battl=
e-tested in that way.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>So, I can see two options: reusing some existing P2P network, or makin=
g a new one, designed specifically for handling mailing list messages in a =
pure P2P way. I guess we can try some existing chains first, and if there i=
s no promising altcoin, or if we don't want to be associated with any altco=
in, then our own Signet-like network could solve it.</div>
</div>

--===============4439648803092852745==--