From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 755D1AC1 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:41:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E75137 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:41:29 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <558B4632.8080504@bitcoins.info> <558B68C3.9050608@bitcoins.info> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <558B9484.1030803@bitcoins.info> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:41:24 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060706030205040801030100" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:41:33 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060706030205040801030100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit These are the kind of silly responses you often get when this subject comes up. Mr. Garzik knows how to ignore messages he doesn't want so I see no need for him to use the list to attack people he doesn't agree with and/or try to interfere with discussions of others on the list. He turns it into a personality discussion rather than a discussion of Systems Engineering. He also tries to intimate anyone who brings up the discussion and "punish" them as a lesson to anyone else who may raise the issue. It is interesting that people like that are attracted to a decentralized system. The reply is simply an attempt at protecting turf which is why Mr. Garzik's vague replies are never taken seriously on the subject of decision-making process for the software. Russ On 6/25/2015 1:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Ladies & gents, please do not feed the troll. This has been explained > to Milly multiple times in the past, on previous mailing list & github > with no impact. > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin > wrote: > > I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response > everyone gets when they ask that question. If you had a well > constructed documented process then you would be able to point to > it ... but you can't. While there are a few bits and pieces > scattered about in different places there is no coherent plan or > process. > > It is easy to make statements like "consensus must be unanimous" > but the issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you > have to move forward in some fashion and everyone has to run > software with the same consensus rules. The issue is how you move > forward is the question that nobody wants to answer because (a) it > is a hard question to answer and (b) developers see it as a threat > to their authority/position. If people just keep shutting down > the discussion with a bunch of cultish stock answers then you are > never going to move forward with developing some kind of process. > > From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven > and not based on Computer Science or and defined process. The > issue is that a personality has changed so the process is > perceived to be different and some people want to hard fork. > Previously, the cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is > decentralized because people can fork the code. Now that some > developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a big problem. > Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it the > work of the devil? The fact that there is so much diverse > opinion on this shows a defined process has never been fully > vetted or understood. > > I have worked on these processes for many years for projects > orders of magnitudes larger than Bitcoin. I can absolutely assure > you the current mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time > are wasted. That should be readily apparent from the recent > discussions and the recent concern it has caused from people > outside the developer's inner circle. > > Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort. > > Russ > > > > > > On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: >> I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason >> that people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed >> process that does work (thank you very much!) and is well >> documented. We talk about it quite often in fact as it is a >> defining characteristic of how bitcoin is developed which differs >> in some ways from how other open source software is developed -- >> although it remains the same in most other ways. >> >> Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get >> merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from >> recognized developers, there are no outstanding objections, and >> the maintainer doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that >> the code is ready. >> >> Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin >> Core only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long >> discussion period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a >> chance to comment, and no significant objections remain. >> Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be. >> >> The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example, >> with working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place >> where changes define the nature and validity of other people's >> money. Who has the right to reach into your pocket and define how >> you can or cannot spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is >> that no one has that right, yet that is very much what we do when >> consensus code changes are made. That is why when we make a >> change to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make >> sure that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it. >> >> Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does. >> Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without >> issue. Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment >> in the very near future, and we intend to repeat this process for >> more interesting changes such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. >> >> This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider." >> This is about no one having the right to decide these things on >> the behalf of others. If a contentious change is proposed and not >> accepted by the process of consensus, that is because the process >> is doing its job at rejecting controversial changes. It has >> nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with the >> nature of bitcoin itself. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin >> > wrote: >> >> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers >> become defensive and they usually give a very vague >> 1-sentence answer when this question is asked. It seems to >> be it is based on personalities rather than any kind of >> definable process. To have that discussion the personalities >> must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such >> wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the >> discussion. Also, the incentive for new developers to come in >> is that they will be paid by companies who want to influence >> the code and this should be considered (some developers take >> this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of >> the incentive process). >> >> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does >> not want to be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very >> significant decider. While the users have the ultimate >> choice in a practical sense the chief developer is the >> "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody >> wants to push the issue or fully define the process. Now you >> are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While >> this type of thing may work with a small group of developers >> businesses/investors looking in from the outside will see >> this as a risk. >> >> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you >> are going to have a tough time defining a real process. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote: >> >> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, >> or at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who >> should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP >> implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority >> of these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then >> what is? >> >> Raystonn >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------060706030205040801030100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
These are the kind of silly responses you often get when this subject comes up.  Mr. Garzik knows how to ignore messages he doesn't want so I see no need for him to use the list to attack people he doesn't agree with and/or try to interfere with discussions of others on the list.
He turns it into a personality discussion rather than a discussion of Systems Engineering.  He also tries to intimate anyone who brings up the discussion and "punish" them as a lesson to anyone else who may raise the issue.  

It is interesting that people like that are attracted to a decentralized system.   The reply is simply an attempt at protecting turf which is why Mr. Garzik's vague replies are never taken seriously on the subject of decision-making process for the software.

Russ


On 6/25/2015 1:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ladies & gents, please do not feed the troll.  This has been explained to Milly multiple times in the past, on previous mailing list & github with no impact.


On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response everyone gets when they ask that question.  If you had a well constructed documented process then you would be able to point to it ... but you can't.  While there are a few bits and pieces scattered  about in different places there is no coherent plan or process.

It is easy to make statements like "consensus must be unanimous" but the issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you have to move forward in some fashion and everyone has to run software with the same consensus rules.  The issue is how you move forward is the question that nobody wants to answer because (a) it is a hard question to answer and (b) developers see it as a threat to their authority/position.  If people just keep shutting down the discussion with a bunch of cultish stock answers then you are never going to move forward with developing some kind of process. 

From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven and not based on Computer Science or and defined process.  The issue is that a personality has changed so the process is perceived to be different and some people want to hard fork.  Previously, the cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is decentralized because people can fork the code.  Now that some developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a big problem.   Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it the work of the devil?   The fact that there is so much diverse opinion on this shows a defined process has never been fully vetted or understood.

I have worked on these processes for many years for projects orders of magnitudes larger than Bitcoin.  I can absolutely assure you the current mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time are wasted.  That should be readily apparent from the recent discussions and the recent concern it has caused from people outside the developer's inner circle. 

Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.

Russ





On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason that people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed process that does work (thank you very much!) and is well documented. We talk about it quite often in fact as it is a defining characteristic of how bitcoin is developed which differs in some ways from how other open source software is developed -- although it remains the same in most other ways.

Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized developers, there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that the code is ready.

Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long discussion period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be.

The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example, with working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place where changes define the nature and validity of other people's money. Who has the right to reach into your pocket and define how you can or cannot spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is that no one has that right, yet that is very much what we do when consensus code changes are made. That is why when we make a change to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make sure that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it.

Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does. Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue. Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment in the very near future, and we intend to repeat this process for more interesting changes such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider." This is about no one having the right to decide these things on the behalf of others. If a contentious change is proposed and not accepted by the process of consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at rejecting controversial changes. It has nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.


On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
I have seen this question asked many times.  Most developers become defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this question is asked.  It seems to be it is based on personalities rather than any kind of definable process.  To have that discussion the personalities must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the discussion.  Also, the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to influence the code and this should be considered (some developers take this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of the incentive process).

The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider.  While the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief developer is the "decider."  Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the process.  Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process.  While this type of thing may work with a small group of developers businesses/investors looking in from the outside will see this as a risk.

Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going to have a tough time defining a real process.

Russ






On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process.  Who should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core?  Is a simple majority of these voters sufficient for approval?  If not, then what is?

Raystonn
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------060706030205040801030100--