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
|
Return-Path: <kanzure@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A0DC95D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:48:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com
[209.85.161.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB81812F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:48:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a12so4288876ywh.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=R4lY36ur9MZnPaQdo+dcDXoHfiSzRbYBfhdeY+Gs05k=;
b=sTkIMudaes6o+RcQJNdjMNoalsUKMfU7teL/nfUhn6WGwgoyYMX9/cU9bRim9L5iS1
4PT5sg7apTksrDZupxNJVDvKSOENeckqaPPtabls3EL+c5FgHr7vzLIgdg488qAotfk0
plRtCo7RerS/ccV5eY4d4MhAFsJF1YQA9FRB1oCC22fr6/Aszt6htX9o+BZ/3Gse/hKN
uwtfZB8n3iZtPdjYSeosX+lyfQrhu6OHM90r761Cd+J537IrrrYkA6gU3UQ3bg6hL6Li
yuBW7Wbre5ZeJkdvR15Ezm12nnhOgWNfQgU8r62yqnzz0RRslZVTlXmgzn1lRqaIFrki
zOCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=R4lY36ur9MZnPaQdo+dcDXoHfiSzRbYBfhdeY+Gs05k=;
b=NRr8Cm9tj34LJICYeuEveFi2/1kGolEfmghIEUKYoJaViMvAH40JrqNs2WO1B0iJJQ
O87dF2n0aYXA5jkh7zl3XxQ8kR0+DMiyOd5fcJbnI60BJRof4yQikJYtPVSezdLmfGuY
1bnsYQqza0EH5lkIwBdY6LYmCvYm8NqenWXa3g4e16YR1mMyAGWShtuxEt888wipVCAk
YyLth0FB0tF5W2kxWWDze707ywQb40QPoKVIPdrds2VntTzwFF8Ev4lwqOxrloHvNQAg
2mf8wZxf5GxhiPEnkJE+WzYBYV5kEVmG9npXT9jWo5kRApqCnSB62Y7/NGsyQLnLBA3i
beQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110wNrDbX93ub/PSsNCuu+YN/JAYkRVBR+lmvc+xx1K6yPB3GeaP
8Vj4XvbvVrL0j5A8FLmuivRGbFssFg==
X-Received: by 10.129.76.72 with SMTP id z69mr862880ywa.251.1499827719095;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.71.4 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001b20f2-1f33-3484-8ad2-1420ae1a2df5@gmail.com>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRDVgdMYZo776iLwbm23aGNDWL85YgD=yF=M-0_vqJ5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1c1d06a9-2e9f-5b2d-42b7-d908ada4b09e@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTsjfMGw6D_OxDthSrrdLEFx2skGedLAjTwz3yCQijyug@mail.gmail.com>
<001b20f2-1f33-3484-8ad2-1420ae1a2df5@gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:48:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBawY0P4GM-5dcyznLgTkAfm7qmDt-8BgMPWSCcvfRH-MHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:50:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:48:40 -0000
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> it, etc. But I am not willing to press the issue. Some of your other
> comments I also find confusing but there is little to be gained in
> clarifying them. )
To me it looked as if I was reading an email that was making a bunch
of points about how bitcoin development can't be coordinated and how
things would be broken if it were to be coordinated ("high authority
edicts"). There was a lot of harm caused by calling that 2015 email a
roadmap. Somehow-- and there's no way to figure out how this happened
I guess- people started putting timeline commitments to different
features. But there's really no way to guarantee any of those
timelines. And I think it's very quick to reach the point of unethical
to advocate a perspective that there's guarantee to things will happen
according to that timeline in the standard bitcoin development model.
I think there's already such a huge amount of public misunderstanding
around how bitcoin development works that giving guarantees even as a
community would further increase the misunderstandings.
> Generally, I still think that the roadmap was a helpful communication
> device, which did more good than harm. And I am interested in hearing
> what other people think.
I think generally communicating about research directions and projects
is useful and valuable, and I don't see any disagreement about that in
itself from anyone in this thread. I recommend an abundance of caution
with regards to whether to call these efforts roadmaps.
>> Come now, this is needlessly insulting. I would have made the same
>> comment if you had talked to me because you didn't talk to most/all of
>> Matt Corallo, Wladimir, Pieter Wuille, Alex Morcos, etc.... e.g. the
>> people doing most of the work of actually building the system. Before
>> making that comment I went and checked with people to find out if only
>> I was left out. Talking to Adam (who isn't involved in the project)
>> and Luke-jr (who is but is well known for frustratingly extreme
>> minority positions and also contracts for Blockstream sometimes) isn't
>
> Let me try to explain my point of view. I did speak to several people,
> in addition to the two names that I privately volunteered to you when
> you had done no research (you failed to uncover any additional names),
Well I mean he did look at some of the people putting the most effort
into bitcoin development. Why would he start at the other end of the
list as a rough check..?
> suggested that, other than yourself and a few others, no one is
> qualified even to write a first draft of a summary of present day
Those suggestions were mixed with strong avocado that summaries are
good, coupled with recommendations that these aren't really roadmaps.
As to qualifying from where knowledge is sourced, yeah it seems like
talking with developers is a good idea, it seems everyone agrees with
that in this thread.
> activities. This response is typical of the hostile review environment
> which has existed in Bitcoin for years (I am more than used to it). If
Well, to the extent that criticism is being misinterpreted as hostile,
I have seen people get upset from basic security review because "why
were't we more friendly and just say OK instead of pointing out the
problems".
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
|
