[Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Gavin Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1117 bytes --]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> You and Gavin could do a lot better by working on a Bitcoin social
> contract - a promise of what features will *never* be added (or taken
> away) from Bitcoin, because despite what you say it's not acceptable
> to propose anything at all.
>

Now I'm really confused.

Why would Mike or I have the authority to write a "social contract" to
promise anything about future-Bitcoin?

I thought the only "social contract" was the decentralized one we have
already-- if you don't like something about the code, then don't download
and run it. Or fork it if you're able.

As the person who started this mailing list, I DO feel like I have the
authority to enforce a social contract of "no trolling or flaming or
name-calling" here. I'd very much like to delegate that authority, though;
ideally to some software algorithm that automatically censors topics or
people who don't contribute to a productive discussion.

PS: speaking of productive discussion...
... please change the Subject line when the topic wanders.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1700 bytes --]

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Justus Ranvier]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/19/2014 09:41 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Now I'm really confused.
> 
> Why would Mike or I have the authority to write a "social contract"
> to promise anything about future-Bitcoin?

YOU can make promises about YOUR future behavior. So can everyone else.

The rest of the community can keep track of which developers will and
will not make promises about what changes they will and will not
attempt to implement in Bitcoin, and they can use that information to
make informed decisions about which software they will choose to support.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTemMNAAoJEMP3uyY4RQ21KJMH/1MbnPxZ42sjVjEiGSQBkGfE
E3jt8aAf2DTza8xtybSmT/pHVhx/VUT4UNj9oBZayqJ1eUNr6YMgGCP8J+DxBtN+
mYH4lTnCiR4+hjO9aux0AWFV+hfZSq7A41QH6wymLa5CyywOtc+i7i3qU5ZGrbtX
9yBrQpFilvMIlrAOBDlXUwb06FDK17ZHHX4V5sI8PSRYJvoiWCrk12Vqj1Z95UOy
ayzWGwbO30ky6lGirBXfpu2e2WJADE9sc43ecNCDplUMR4D4n9jwAUldEiMSBKg2
pwUNcfj1gaKkscj4QmGKMbq6yug+lrSa8qq/jFsbQq+2pqT4VjlQlrN52wz7Yeg=
=Jafe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Gavin Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 359 bytes --]

Okey dokey:

I hereby promise and solemnly swear on pain of atomic wedgie that I will
never ever work on or endorse any changes to the Bitcoin system that would
enable any person or group to confiscate, blacklist, or devalue any other
person or group's bitcoin.

RE: writing an RFC: go for it. I have much higher tasks on my TODO list.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 491 bytes --]

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Mike Hearn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 678 bytes --]

Sorry. I will never agree to the concept of a relevant idea so dangerous it
cannot be discussed. That's medieval thinking. If you would like to create
a parallel development forum where people have to swear an oath not to
think bad thoughts, go right ahead and do so.

But I'm glad to see you correctly identified yourself as one of the people
causing problems on this list. Your vicious attacks are one of the reasons
we're now seeing threads that start with "I hope I don't get flamed or
laughed at for this idea but ...." which is totally unacceptable. I would
prefer you just unsubscribe, in the hope we get a second chance from some
of the potential developers we've lost.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 758 bytes --]

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Justus Ranvier]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/19/2014 10:06 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Sorry. I will never agree to the concept of a relevant idea so
> dangerous it cannot be discussed. That's medieval thinking. If you
> would like to create a parallel development forum where people have
> to swear an oath not to think bad thoughts, go right ahead and do
> so.
> 
> But I'm glad to see you correctly identified yourself as one of the
> people causing problems on this list. Your vicious attacks are one
> of the reasons we're now seeing threads that start with "I hope I
> don't get flamed or laughed at for this idea but ...." which is
> totally unacceptable. I would prefer you just unsubscribe, in the
> hope we get a second chance from some of the potential developers
> we've lost.
> 

I'm glad to see you correctly identified yourself as well.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTemXNAAoJEMP3uyY4RQ21KNUH/12vTPOPNjQQIunTkNCSqV6P
hub7mrW/hS4NSlK7P3Laq5qj+qB9ou/uIRCPP6uIhk6scicbukn31nw1p/er0YoQ
XGFE+SmF+Z5Ysz/5uA1OP9VdjBKggbI6rFVZKbt5DwrFK0gCDMtgcxO2y6CFGR+U
mFhD9ORf/NdAozFanXSEk81p5OfZqhhnxaPPpPnwQeojtLwE20reLrEcCKy6XMEs
Mtfan+qgPJYTmWiWmDHsrFsz+5HwpkR5giDf4hzW5J1F8Vj+LTPXjGz9Txldk89t
0dRmYFAtE74QgXsIRvWny9ho4YL/Nn+WHf0Qf3HKh31wrzSea0KFKpPaa32xpKA=
=jIov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com> wrote:
> YOU can make promises about YOUR future behavior. So can everyone else.
>
> The rest of the community can keep track of which developers will and
> will not make promises about what changes they will and will not
> attempt to implement in Bitcoin, and they can use that information to
> make informed decisions about which software they will choose to support.

I promise that if bad people show up with a sufficient pointy gun that
I'll do whatever they tell me to do. I'll make bad proposals, submit
backdoors, and argue with querulous folks on mailing lists, diverting
them from real development and review work, all as commanded. Maybe
I'll try to sneak out a warning of some kind, maybe... but with my
life or my families or friends lives on the line— probably not.

... and I think that anyone who tells you otherwise probably just
hasn't really thought it through.  So what is the point of commitments
like that?  People change, people go crazy, people are coerced. Crap
happens, justifications are made, life goes on— or so we hope.

What matters is building infrastructure— both social and technical—
that is robust against those sorts of failures. If you're depending on
individual developers (including anonymous parties and volunteers) to
be somehow made more trustworthy by some promises on a mailing list
you've already lost.

If you care about this you could instead tell us about how much time
you promise to spend reviewing technical work to make sure such
attacks cannot be successful, regardless of their origins. Where are
your gitian signatures? I think thats a lot more meaningful, and it
also improves security for everyone involved since knowing that such
attacks can not succeeded removes the motivation for ever trying.

A lot of what Bitcoin is about, for me at least, is building systems
which are as trustless as possible— ruled by unbreakable rules
embodied in the software people chose to use out of their own free
will and understanding. Or at least thats the ideal we should try to
approximate. If we're successful the adhomenim you've thrown on this
list will be completely pointless— not because people are trusted to
not do evil but because Bitcoin users won't accept technology that
makes it possible.

So please go ahead and assume I'm constantly being evil and trying to
sneak something in... the technology and security can only be better
for it, but please leave the overt attacks at the door. Think
gentleman spies, not a street fighting death match. The rude attacks
and characterizations just turn people off and don't uncover actual
attacks.  Maybe the informal guideline should be one flame-out
personal attack per cryptosystem you break, serious bug you uncover,
or impossible problem you solve. :)

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Working on social contracts (was: Paper Currency)

[Justus Ranvier]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/19/2014 11:07 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I promise that if bad people show up with a sufficient pointy gun
> that I'll do whatever they tell me to do. I'll make bad proposals,
> submit backdoors, and argue with querulous folks on mailing lists,
> diverting them from real development and review work, all as
> commanded. Maybe I'll try to sneak out a warning of some kind,
> maybe... but with my life or my families or friends lives on the
> line— probably not.
> 
> ... and I think that anyone who tells you otherwise probably just 
> hasn't really thought it through.  So what is the point of
> commitments like that?  People change, people go crazy, people are
> coerced. Crap happens, justifications are made, life goes on— or so
> we hope.

I presume you're familiar with the concept of a warrant canary, so
presumably you'd also see why public statements such as I was
discussing would be similarly useful.

Social contracts make it more difficult to hide coercion, which serves
no one except the attackers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTenU+AAoJEMP3uyY4RQ21P1UH/2fvYa7Hfv53eXA0k9appRVI
8KWpH2D95zCo/s6kIeKZtmEzhFWFkKxOHwiHZbD5JokG+U/vUeR8p+SxF1/xUc1X
1tTNAjfAALz0/KzjPKmlMQCqM5vT4yumHsDusqPuzbPFnJnwFufrAW9vWu9OJacs
JEv4yoRGNZhR+eM8hCUkDfTtj7D8J3gMYyYds7K4kppiHN2UPRgZT6TCVyCRlThe
8w9MzYoTAf1WXPmzvSfPhzKMfNV9Y+tjt6ZV+KyLG1ZGLw2EDCxJR1O23QQE8IfK
53I2RgeFnvcdceoExSfYJj+kNpbPQ/WDVszswO5esoMWJ/E3j5PCBsLdGt+8e7I=
=BysA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----