1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
|
Return-Path: <bounce+33760e.2c141-bitcoin-dev=lists.linuxfoundation.org@suredbits.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5466C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:28:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:05 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 DAD38CB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:28:24 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suredbits.com;
q=dns/txt;
s=mailo; t=1489850904; h=Content-Type: To: Subject: Message-ID: Date:
From: MIME-Version: Sender;
bh=ehKYym9UALQB/eLcVcZ38ZaAX0XKHSSI8FPdw3ergBY=;
b=n+LDky08BvJikF+Oq1h4ORUx8k63hdCtZSbVX+jE4cdBsFtQDyII9ZyxpcZVwbLMHYXB/35P
jtAw88j86BZP3e8mCXXfs5IUlqSRIC7z3Nme++gvVU1BcbDzJ/fFPC5D/niKoY9kxP3AiBNe
LYOIhp6iLNFY7abELmmxEmEhOeQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=suredbits.com; s=mailo;
q=dns; h=Sender: MIME-Version: From: Date: Message-ID: Subject: To:
Content-Type;
b=lNXvX2iX7UwtFgw8igtz7337R9PiV5LkFV5oNZvCdxbepB1JdlIvoChPcdGQRW0cTeN07B
U7LnvBbgX5f3M4ccTWsSt1oOS8Bm58bDxnshevQW/Juu1dvfHURLOnOrD2IMwFS9DARqXbBO
LX13LBovgL7QY0U8vB63AHsJJUPxQ=
Sender: chris@suredbits.com
X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 198.61.254.16
X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI5MGYzNyIsICJiaXRjb2luLWRldkBsaXN0cy5saW51eGZvdW5kYXRpb24ub3JnIiwgIjJjMTQxIl0=
Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com (mail-it0-f47.google.com
[209.85.214.47])
by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 58cd50e5.7f4f48305bf0-smtp-out-n01;
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:23:17 -0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m27so19143813iti.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1Vl+j7ApAd8K9n4uNXyrcOCWT3hRqWYw8Jys49xX1TXHzSGf04dWNE58EX958jg+6zeTCgqMN9bP9nrQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.137.226 with SMTP id t95mr20431474ioi.79.1489850596916;
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.137.103 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:23:16 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAGL6+mEnGNdAggHZs=ZM_QHbts63exE1ydstK+w-gUnm=4JLTA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGL6+mEnGNdAggHZs=ZM_QHbts63exE1ydstK+w-gUnm=4JLTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8
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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:46:23 +0000
Subject: [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 15:28:26 -0000
--001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 we =
are
seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. The critiques of these
changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on who is submitting the
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 extremely
promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a matter
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 could 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, chr=
istewart, concatenated
with some entropy, in this case these bytes:
639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b
and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail can
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 submit
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 level=
s the
playing field =E2=80=94 making the BIP process even more meritocratic than =
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 original
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 where
our money is based on a democratic vote =E2=80=94 or the votes of a select =
few
elites. We need to vet claims by =E2=80=9Cauthority figures=E2=80=9D whethe=
r 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
--001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><p name=3D"fd62" id=3D"gmail-fd62" class=3D"gmail-graf gma=
il-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p">As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, the=
re 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></p><p name=3D"fd62" class=3D=
"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p"><strong class=3D"gmail-marku=
p--strong gmail-markup--p-strong">Avoiding politicization of technical chan=
ges in the future</strong></p><p name=3D"da39" id=3D"gmail-da39" class=3D"g=
mail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p">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"gmail-0987" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-gra=
f--p gmail-graf-after--p">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"gmail-36af=
" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--blockquote gmail-graf-after--p">BIP: 1337=
</blockquote><blockquote name=3D"89e3" id=3D"gmail-89e3" class=3D"gmail-gra=
f gmail-graf--blockquote gmail-graf-after--blockquote">Author: <a href=3D"m=
ailto:9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com">9458b7f9f761=
31f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com</a></blockquote><blockquote nam=
e=3D"9b18" id=3D"gmail-9b18" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--blockquote gma=
il-graf-after--blockquote">BIP content down here</blockquote><p name=3D"481=
6" id=3D"gmail-4816" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--bl=
ockquote">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"gmail-fdcc" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-af=
ter--p">and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonm=
ail can support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appea=
rs it cannot support SHA256 hashes. <br></p><p name=3D"fdcc" class=3D"gmail=
-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p">There is inconvenience added here.=
You need to make a new email address, you need to make a new github accoun=
t to submit the BIP. I think it is worth the cost -- but am interested in w=
hat others think about this. I don't think people submitting patches to=
a BIP should be required to submit under a pseudonym -- only the primary a=
uthor. 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. <br></p><p name=3D"769a" id=3D"gmail-769a" =
class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p"><strong class=3D"gma=
il-markup--strong gmail-markup--p-strong">What does this give us?</strong><=
/p><p name=3D"5cda" id=3D"gmail-5cda" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gma=
il-graf-after--p">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"gmail-faa8" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail=
-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p">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"gmail-a4fb" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail=
-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p"><strong class=3D"gmail-markup--strong gmail-m=
arkup--p-strong">The Future</strong></p>Politicization of bitcoin is only g=
oing 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><p name=3D"1227" cl=
ass=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p gmail-graf--trailing">T=
houghts? <br></p><p name=3D"1227" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-g=
raf-after--p gmail-graf--trailing">-Chris<br></p><p name=3D"1227" class=3D"=
gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p gmail-graf--trailing"><br></p>=
<p name=3D"1227" class=3D"gmail-graf gmail-graf--p gmail-graf-after--p gmai=
l-graf--trailing"><br></p></div>
--001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8--
|
