Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10205C0032 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Bitcoin Dev Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 11:54:56 +0100 Message-Id: <102858647-4a24d51eb95c76b443567edd0852c411@pmq6v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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
What about using Signet, or some separate P2P network, to handle all o= f that?
 
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.
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.
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.=
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.
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.
6. The code is almost = there. Maybe there are even altcoins, designed specifically for storing dat= a, and we could just use them?
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.
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.=
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.
 
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.
--===============4439648803092852745==--