From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:28:23 -0700 Received: from mail-yb1-f189.google.com ([209.85.219.189]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uRBl0-00059H-7T for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:28:23 -0700 Received: by mail-yb1-f189.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e639763e43dsf6263861276.0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1750087696; x=1750692496; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=h/NZMrkwFVEoj4flhlTYwbejV181ng6/FecPiixd6Lk=; b=hNNUSo8ovBQVBBkHaTv7KosvbyC6O2A92uCwAlzVYWxQx+vo7cAD954sjCDjEAq0cM /7R8uBX1DEZPtmN3FeiiMg0vugEhu3NnqMr5TZONq0+W5Cmc8z5e7PJQnZm5yXF0AuDQ dTh3CxeZO7ZEBdWexKyY8S5oea1djkYPRl6X2YHEDwW/3v/9oWR9/sFqAPettCIi8gXP topXjyZtd+smdNjm8nD/5Pn2Z9+PrQv02+I/llHgW2D+VXKukkg5Nk/t6RsbI+BIzUfC 5PgirLSuUSwWs4Toio3AgFqe5Pvd/5tJsOK+BBRI7DebPZL8If2GO6JhEhfD+C8IP18b yIPA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1750087696; x=1750692496; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=h/NZMrkwFVEoj4flhlTYwbejV181ng6/FecPiixd6Lk=; b=fW7DRwR5idn5/GgmDGx9pxgjUh7wOSauCY28P6qBeZz95RWnM/2R2HeGLoqvwx3Usy NZ7TgYr5wBIP11fSYW+QoT7/WzZ6qG5dEjOXLL0l5mUy1ZvDJsRH7W/1oa8Tajse6yHp 8nnG2rFSlgqUl830Z3BvYIMyH2cApbmk4eE4uCH3ZidRHxF/SDcBGyBAypUT/p34M6zf jHrTZVK+rovtfvBGYTlcPkqk5WDeRZNJ+b3MXSzGFy1pTaTDHIgOoSym0VXSa0up+3QD 3eCbjikXVm2tFolB/3zkU4OcHLi4FM1ou3PrbYlqfUyQ/oUHdYGVhPe015PNwnEMm1w3 oVfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1750087696; x=1750692496; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere :x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=h/NZMrkwFVEoj4flhlTYwbejV181ng6/FecPiixd6Lk=; b=XRM73a4etkKzwhZalh4Ly5EdDHIH/ChxBOTSiOrEJXfZec5u7B8qK2HtFltm6bQiy6 4CBSkV3S782pzkD+x/T10BxmsLiZ6fNJTn+0CoW34iqb8F58iU+qFPd9sd4uYjk3yMtz vsxoP9+o/YfQJ2ZwxoEsvnvdLGBzU7w3nx9T4k8thFKsSYdTR4mEJlftmXJRoPGZIHpz cOkjT7bd680FB3zFSqwmLKb25+0hLsET4mf+kfVlHWqhBd4x9hGn93N1WQKHaPHlLx1d 5wOOZ2xPAQlMm1KfsmoyTogU3smq/vPfMJrgQ5bs0eXuzThv6baIB2D/L2d9ALp+mKqp FBuA== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU30emPV0pSnPHl0W/BuNM4ryN4NEFPyRgi8h2gIcXzl5pqzjXgmEcE/qbdQ7LYP/JT49rtGlenJVXb@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwNbXq1EuFLKqDFMNPe0w59BVMr20eMJdoJ9EnyiwaIzTZr0isS w2rQCqMGkcirm9+Z6D8bB3CgBW7+fM6Hx0yZuSWWgZ20yPgCf7ZypHEr X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE9qbrh3RbULDXamNXzxnn4lv3vyq6sTHOeP99gMMmir0fD9r+qMQ6XumQGu/0vwzfiOSP4Dw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1884:b0:e82:1c41:fc61 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e822acab4fdmr12451665276.5.1750087696200; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=AZMbMZdlJcjjxzGr+fTQOZZIxHwgtSl57VGLCqWxqQqYPR37iQ== Received: by 2002:a25:d847:0:b0:e7d:804c:d381 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e820dac7c5als4720220276.2.-pod-prod-00-us; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:a0a4:10b0:70e:2804:9930 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7117236ad51mr99788937b3.10.1750087691813; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:690c:3246:b0:710:fccf:6901 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-71162d3ec86ms7b3; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:660c:b0:70e:39e:91c2 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7117236c5a6mr156698967b3.11.1750086885276; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:14:44 -0700 (PDT) From: waxwing/ AdamISZ To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: <4ad72033-dac1-4a4d-a432-1cc525f92e6dn@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_470318_706782074.1750086884650" X-Original-Sender: ekaggata@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) ------=_Part_470318_706782074.1750086884650 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_470319_1293404734.1750086884650" ------=_Part_470319_1293404734.1750086884650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My personal opinion is that the best solution is to create a very strong=20 ruleset on disallowing any non-technical contribution on github, and=20 applying that rule rigorously no matter whether the content *feels*=20 acceptable or not, and no matter how well respected the contributor is and= =20 might rightfully be given some slack. This would be for PRs; for Issues, I= =20 don't know how much of a similar problem you have, but templates aren't bad= =20 I guess. Such extreme discipline is only needed in that repo, virtually no other=20 repo needs it. I also do realize this could end up a bit of a weak-sauce suggestion=20 compared to others in this thread (I quite like Andrew's suggestion but,=20 not sure it's exactly the right one). This would have to be accompanied by a very strong cohesion around what=20 *is* the correct forum for technically-adjacent bitcoin policy discussion= =20 (as just one example, advocating for or against soft forks goes in this=20 bucket), and also tonally to *encourage* such discussion; that=20 encouragement would have to be broadcast from the github repo itself,=20 certainly in messages to people whose discussion contribution is blocked.= =20 Obviously it would have to be noted elsewhere too like the main=20 distribution website for the software. Unfortunately I don't think this mailing list *quite* fits the job, though= =20 it's close ... on the other hand, where else? If this list is manually=20 moderated (as I believe it is), do we have a bitcoin-"policy" mailing list= =20 or other channel? I think the biggest problems arise when you insist that there is *no* place= =20 for what you see as "brigading", "sock puppetry" etc. I have seen several= =20 times in the past (most notably around the blocksize wars) where many=20 highly respected engineers dismissed all opposing opinions as sock=20 puppetry. This is not realistic, nor is it healthy. If you stuff all=20 contrary opinions (uneducated or not!) into a garbage bin that you label=20 "politics" (imagine the phrase "go and discuss it on bitcoin-politics" with= =20 the tacit assumption that no one serious is ever going to read that=20 dumpster fire), it invites the exact conflict you're trying to avoid. I=20 suggest "bitcoin policy" as a general title for such things, because=20 bitcoin does indeed have "policies" in the general sense (not just the=20 technical meaning of "policy" in bitcoin-the-software but also consensus=20 itself is a flavor of policy). If it doesn't end up being a place that=20 serious people talk seriously, then of course it will have failed in the=20 intention. Cheers, AdamISZ/waxwing On Sunday, June 15, 2025 at 1:30:24=E2=80=AFPM UTC-3 Andrew Poelstra wrote: > I have a few thoughts about this -- bearing in mind that I am a drive-by > contributor to Core, at best, and don't have much personal opinion other > than maybe "I wish it were easier to get stuff in". > > 1. I think that Antoine is correct that "it's easier and more natural" > is a bigger motivation for "office work" than is the fear of brigade. > So one thing is that any change to public processes shouldn't make it > _harder_ for people to collaborate online, since that could push > people more to in-person fora and we'd just have the worst of both > worlds. Or at least, anyone making such a change should have a lot of > confidence that the increased friendliness to earnest contributors > would outweigh the extra friction. > > 2. On the other hand, fear of brigades _does_ clearly have a nonzero > chilling effect. I certainly think about it when publicly communicating > near the project, and I commonly bring it up when doing things in > rust-bitcoin (i.e. "fortunately, we're not Core, so we can just do > [some change that would constrain wallet workflows, or which could > make ordinals particularly hard, or particularly easy, or whatever]" > and not have to worry about fallout.) > > So at the very least, it's a factor that discourages some external > developers from being bigger contributors to the project. > > 3. And of course, it's not just obvious brigades -- when one or two > nontechnical people show up with strong political views about > something which really is not a political change (or at least, > doesn't have the political effect they believe it does, because of > their own misunderstanding), it's still discouraging and sometimes > stressful. And this happens all the time around mempool policy, > even if PRs with 100+ comments that get locked are fairly rare. > > 4. However, after (ironically) discussing this email off-list with a > bunch of people, I think that these problems stem from a fairly small > cultural issue: that the Github repo appears to be a totally open > forum where anyone is welcome to participate, even in code review > threads, because technically anybody _can_ participate with no > obvious sense that they're leaving X and entering somebody's > workplace. > > And _this_, IMHO, might be solvable by something extremely simple. It > might be sufficient to just move from Github to Gitlab or Codeberg or > something where far fewer people have accounts. It would probably be > sufficient to just find a platform where you have to register on the > Core repo somehow then wait 24 hours before you can post, with the > implication that if you're not there to contribute technically, you > might lose your access. (This is true on Github but the only > mechanism is that you can be banned from the org, something that > feels heavy and scary for maintainers to use -- I really hate doing > this to non-bots on rust-bitcoin and I don't even have to worry that > they'll go on twitter to scream censorship and that I'm taking over > Bitcoin or whatever -- and is also more-or-less invisible to users > until it happens to them, so it's not an effective deterrent.) > > It would certainly be effective to put a strong technical barrier, > e.g. you have to produce a custom mining share to join, or a strong > social barrier, e.g. you need personal invitations from two people. > > But I think such tech barriers would be unnecessary and the social > barriers wouldn't be worth the cries of censorship and centralization > that they'd inevitably (and somewhat reasonably) cause. > > 5. I don't see much of benefit to making the repo *unreadable* to > outsiders. It sorta prevents linking on Twitter but if we expect > there to be mirrors, people can just link to the mirrors. > > > Again, it's not my project and I don't mean to advocate for anything in > particular. Just trying to organize thinking on the topic a bit. > > > --=20 > Andrew Poelstra > Director, Blockstream Research > Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net > Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew > > The sun is always shining in space > -Justin Lewis-Webster > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= 4ad72033-dac1-4a4d-a432-1cc525f92e6dn%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_470319_1293404734.1750086884650 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My personal opinion is that the best solution is to create a very stro= ng ruleset on disallowing any non-technical contribution on github, and app= lying that rule rigorously no matter whether the content *feels* acceptable= or not, and no matter how well respected the contributor is and might righ= tfully be given some slack. This would be for PRs; for Issues, I don't know= how much of a similar problem you have, but templates aren't bad I guess.<= /div>

Such extreme discipline is only needed in that r= epo, virtually no other repo needs it.

I also do= realize this could end up a bit of a weak-sauce suggestion compared to oth= ers in this thread (I quite like Andrew's suggestion but, not sure it's exa= ctly the right one).

This would have to be accom= panied by a very strong cohesion around what *is* the correct forum for tec= hnically-adjacent bitcoin policy discussion (as just one example, advocatin= g for or against soft forks goes in this bucket), and also tonally to *enco= urage* such discussion; that encouragement would have to be broadcast from = the github repo itself, certainly in messages to people whose discussion co= ntribution is blocked. Obviously it would have to be noted elsewhere too li= ke the main distribution website for the software.

Unfortunately I don't think this mailing list *quite* fits the job, thou= gh it's close ... on the other hand, where else? If this list is manually m= oderated (as I believe it is), do we have a bitcoin-"policy" mailing list o= r other channel?

I think the biggest problems ar= ise when you insist that there is *no* place for what you see as "brigading= ", "sock puppetry" etc. I have seen several times in the past (most notably= around the blocksize wars) where many highly respected engineers dismissed= all opposing opinions as sock puppetry. This is not realistic, nor is it h= ealthy. If you stuff all contrary opinions (uneducated or not!) into a garb= age bin that you label "politics" (imagine the phrase "go and discuss it on= bitcoin-politics" with the tacit assumption that no one serious is ever go= ing to read that dumpster fire), it invites the exact conflict you're tryin= g to avoid. I suggest "bitcoin policy" as a general title for such things, = because bitcoin does indeed have "policies" in the general sense (not just = the technical meaning of "policy" in bitcoin-the-software but also consensu= s itself is a flavor of policy). If it doesn't end up being a place that se= rious people talk seriously, then of course it will have failed in the inte= ntion.

Cheers,
AdamISZ/waxwing

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Sunday,= June 15, 2025 at 1:30:24=E2=80=AFPM UTC-3 Andrew Poelstra wrote:
I have a few thoughts = about this -- bearing in mind that I am a drive-by
contributor to Core, at best, and don't have much personal opinion = other
than maybe "I wish it were easier to get stuff in".

1. I think that Antoine is correct that "it's easier and more = natural"
is a bigger motivation for "office work" than is the fear = of brigade.
So one thing is that any change to public processes shouldn't ma= ke it
_harder_ for people to collaborate online, since that could push
people more to in-person fora and we'd just have the worst of bo= th
worlds. Or at least, anyone making such a change should have a lot o= f
confidence that the increased friendliness to earnest contributors
would outweigh the extra friction.

2. On the other hand, fear of brigades _does_ clearly have a nonzero
chilling effect. I certainly think about it when publicly communicat= ing
near the project, and I commonly bring it up when doing things in
rust-bitcoin (i.e. "fortunately, we're not Core, so we can = just do
[some change that would constrain wallet workflows, or which could
make ordinals particularly hard, or particularly easy, or whatever]&= quot;
and not have to worry about fallout.)

So at the very least, it's a factor that discourages some extern= al
developers from being bigger contributors to the project.

3. And of course, it's not just obvious brigades -- when one or two
nontechnical people show up with strong political views about
something which really is not a political change (or at least,
doesn't have the political effect they believe it does, because = of
their own misunderstanding), it's still discouraging and sometim= es
stressful. And this happens all the time around mempool policy,
even if PRs with 100+ comments that get locked are fairly rare.

4. However, after (ironically) discussing this email off-list with a
bunch of people, I think that these problems stem from a fairly smal= l
cultural issue: that the Github repo appears to be a totally open
forum where anyone is welcome to participate, even in code review
threads, because technically anybody _can_ participate with no
obvious sense that they're leaving X and entering somebody's
workplace.

And _this_, IMHO, might be solvable by something extremely simple. I= t
might be sufficient to just move from Github to Gitlab or Codeberg o= r
something where far fewer people have accounts. It would probably be
sufficient to just find a platform where you have to register on the
Core repo somehow then wait 24 hours before you can post, with the
implication that if you're not there to contribute technically, = you
might lose your access. (This is true on Github but the only
mechanism is that you can be banned from the org, something that
feels heavy and scary for maintainers to use -- I really hate doing
this to non-bots on rust-bitcoin and I don't even have to worry = that
they'll go on twitter to scream censorship and that I'm taki= ng over
Bitcoin or whatever -- and is also more-or-less invisible to users
until it happens to them, so it's not an effective deterrent.)

It would certainly be effective to put a strong technical barrier,
e.g. you have to produce a custom mining share to join, or a strong
social barrier, e.g. you need personal invitations from two people.

But I think such tech barriers would be unnecessary and the social
barriers wouldn't be worth the cries of censorship and centraliz= ation
that they'd inevitably (and somewhat reasonably) cause.

5. I don't see much of benefit to making the repo *unreadable* to
outsiders. It sorta prevents linking on Twitter but if we expect
there to be mirrors, people can just link to the mirrors.


Again, it's not my project and I don't mean to advocate for any= thing in
particular. Just trying to organize thinking on the topic a bit.


--=20
Andrew Poelstra
Director, Blockstream Research
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web: https://www.wpsoftwar= e.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
-Justin Lewis-Webster

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind= ev/4ad72033-dac1-4a4d-a432-1cc525f92e6dn%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_470319_1293404734.1750086884650-- ------=_Part_470318_706782074.1750086884650--