path: root/46/26eaa0d20497efc23dcd82f869251f8b94ae6d

Return-Path: <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7149728
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:58:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com (mail-qt0-f173.google.com
	[209.85.216.173])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936B8184
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:58:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r45so82777107qte.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 
	bh=ghClAfBCoif4KWUDKDjW3IP3ru16LUH0t88fn56BzGs=;
	b=gNYkr5DIkbAH5DrCeE3/1M5OBzFBRJbL/l/QefEWhLpmrYS/dMuDjSlOihPNwPBfoX
	RWf9McB6Cpk88aJjOUl+EYAJPZLqwDHJb/DzvzBOaAI3kR9FBXTn/mEjtXc3D5So0Zno
	ymqP0sqf0gPjLBe/eFTWSS/v49TGyxqjRLDDZDiDyTOpJto7qmDmxTMbS6zygqQeniev
	O3LkhAh4HUWTLZFLuras9jL1L4dYvQZ7Qw/Q94P4j+hgDajOXljFs2+RCRmKriWm1QiP
	0jMY2papX6+PPlBlF3Bb9b4Z2tK4mWg7JtUlej5VMVKF3IFqUVbh4lF6sSvBuRBg5rSv
	vJeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=ghClAfBCoif4KWUDKDjW3IP3ru16LUH0t88fn56BzGs=;
	b=IXZMTMbVVdJXrvsdIBvmh1f14CxD4kvOFArByVitgCV/Qq7bZzOQ4TdS5MasDXA3lP
	bjcP3FyO3XfqYzTEaVVISVXcf2JZSNV6uMOO6oTVB2Ye4f5NTTl5p3lSqmrCUSWMfrap
	/CJ0jsktoIKca7PK0n8VKlLcS1i0kWeiUVNNZ5gwP2ofh7cwgExkkIGqUi+RDT1no2OM
	F28RHMUuVZwYDhd1XDnx4ajKgcieWxTtmjQK7iogxH+EznU3Y/tFHb0QuMxnypImqwbw
	apohdzcNIFyvpbt2SzhSmA+NMEHKkbnROyVdimIU8YKrOkNXzqhA5fjgvgsGyN1NwTIS
	Rvyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3i9sDIdrs9MpU+VE3Yp1Z1g+NcozfzptjZMJ9Ho1V5lruAyusb17x1GoUfJq7MGoI4bKV4Zmyn2eub1A==
X-Received: by 10.200.3.157 with SMTP id t29mr19605085qtg.110.1489856286669;
	Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGL6+mEnGNdAggHZs=ZM_QHbts63exE1ydstK+w-gUnm=4JLTA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGL6+mEnGNdAggHZs=ZM_QHbts63exE1ydstK+w-gUnm=4JLTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:57:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAy62_KCNuBKiU7wUJL_bzz4iNgzsJLfZ9OX4+pTShYUQSZ93Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
	Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FREEMAIL_REPLY,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 14:02:29 +0000
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 <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, 18 Mar 2017 16:58:08 -0000

--f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232
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 <person I've been annoyed by in the past> on
about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed.

And vice versa, it prevents people from being more partial to a bad or not
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 debate
> going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while the
> other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on the
> topic but I won=E2=80=99t discuss them here. The point of the matter is w=
e are
> seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. The critiques of the=
se
> changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on who is submitting th=
e
> 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, over
> TOR, onto a public IRC channel. No ego involved =E2=80=94 only an extreme=
ly
> promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a matt=
er
> 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 cou=
ld
> 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, c=
hristewart, concatenated
> with some entropy, in this case these bytes:
> 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b
>
> and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail ca=
n
> support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appears 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 subm=
it
> 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 can
> be proposed and examined based on it=E2=80=99s technical merits. This lev=
els the
> playing field =E2=80=94 making the BIP process even more meritocratic tha=
n 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 origina=
l
> author of the BIP. I would need to reveal my github username and
> =E2=80=9C639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b=
=E2=80=9D
>
> *The Future*
> Politicization of bitcoin is only going to grow in the future. We need to
> make sure we maintain principled money instead devolving to a system wher=
e
> our money is based on a democratic vote =E2=80=94 or the votes of a selec=
t few
> elites. We need to vet claims by =E2=80=9Cauthority figures=E2=80=9D whet=
her 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 like=
 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
>
--=20
Andrew Johnson

--f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely d=
ata-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to thin=
king &quot;oh great, what&#39;s &lt;person I&#39;ve been annoyed by in the =
past&gt; on about now?&quot; when seeing something posted or proposed.=C2=
=A0</div><div><br></div><div>And vice versa, it prevents people from being =
more partial to a bad or not so great idea simply because it was posited by=
 someone they hold in high regard.</div><div><br></div><div>Simple, yet eff=
ective.=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&#39;t think of a d=
ownside.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
>On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:46 AM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_msg"><p name=3D"fd62" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-fd62" c=
lass=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--p =
m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_msg">As everyone in the Bitc=
oin space knows, 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. <br class=3D"gmail_msg"></p><p na=
me=3D"fd62" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401g=
mail-graf--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_msg"><strong cl=
ass=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-markup--strong m_7222116867636760401gmail=
-markup--p-strong gmail_msg">Avoiding politicization of technical changes i=
n the future</strong></p><p name=3D"da39" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-=
da39" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-g=
raf--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_msg">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.</p><p name=3D"0987" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-0987" class=3D=
"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--p m_72221=
16867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_msg">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:</p><blockquote name=3D"36af" id=3D"m_72221168=
67636760401gmail-36af" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_722211686=
7636760401gmail-graf--blockquote m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p g=
mail_msg">BIP: 1337</blockquote><blockquote name=3D"89e3" id=3D"m_722211686=
7636760401gmail-89e3" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867=
636760401gmail-graf--blockquote m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--bloc=
kquote gmail_msg">Author: <a href=3D"mailto:9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d=
55beb271b@protonmail.com" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">9458b7f9f76=
131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com</a></blockquote><blockquote na=
me=3D"9b18" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-9b18" class=3D"m_7222116867636=
760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--blockquote m_722211686763=
6760401gmail-graf-after--blockquote gmail_msg">BIP content down here</block=
quote><p name=3D"4816" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-4816" class=3D"m_72=
22116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--p m_7222116867=
636760401gmail-graf-after--blockquote gmail_msg">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><p name=
=3D"fdcc" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-fdcc" class=3D"m_722211686763676=
0401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--p m_7222116867636760401gmai=
l-graf-after--p gmail_msg">and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this m=
orning that protonmail can support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unf=
ortunately it appears it cannot support SHA256 hashes. <br class=3D"gmail_m=
sg"></p><p name=3D"fdcc" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116=
867636760401gmail-graf--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_ms=
g">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 wor=
th the cost -- but am interested in what others think about this. I don&#39=
;t think people submitting patches to a BIP should be required to submit un=
der 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 t=
he 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. <br cl=
ass=3D"gmail_msg"></p><p name=3D"769a" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-769=
a" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf=
--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_msg"><strong class=3D"m_=
7222116867636760401gmail-markup--strong m_7222116867636760401gmail-markup--=
p-strong gmail_msg">What does this give us?</strong></p><p name=3D"5cda" id=
=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-5cda" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-gr=
af m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after=
--p gmail_msg">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.</p><p name=3D"faa8" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-faa8" clas=
s=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--p m_7=
222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_msg">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=9C639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f44=
0b=E2=80=9D</p><p name=3D"a4fb" id=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-a4fb" clas=
s=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf--p m_7=
222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p gmail_msg"><strong class=3D"m_7222116=
867636760401gmail-markup--strong m_7222116867636760401gmail-markup--p-stron=
g gmail_msg">The Future</strong></p>Politicization of bitcoin is only going=
 to grow in the future. We need to make sure 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. <br class=3D"gmail_msg"=
><p name=3D"1227" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_72221168676367=
60401gmail-graf--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p m_7222116867636=
760401gmail-graf--trailing gmail_msg">Thoughts? <br class=3D"gmail_msg"></p=
><p name=3D"1227" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_72221168676367=
60401gmail-graf--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p m_7222116867636=
760401gmail-graf--trailing gmail_msg">-Chris<br class=3D"gmail_msg"></p><p =
name=3D"1227" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_722211686763676040=
1gmail-graf--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p m_72221168676367604=
01gmail-graf--trailing gmail_msg"><br class=3D"gmail_msg"></p><p name=3D"12=
27" class=3D"m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf m_7222116867636760401gmail-gra=
f--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-graf-after--p m_7222116867636760401gmail-gr=
af--trailing gmail_msg"><br class=3D"gmail_msg"></p></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" class=3D"gmail_msg=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"g=
mail_msg">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linu=
xfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail=
=3D"gmail_signature">Andrew Johnson<br><div><br></div></div>

--f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232--