From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:59:33 -0700 Received: from mail-yb1-f183.google.com ([209.85.219.183]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1srC4Z-00087D-Tc for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:59:32 -0700 Received: by mail-yb1-f183.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e1d10fde51csf917209276.1 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:59:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1726732765; x=1727337565; 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=Ctbm3biyREeTDWDJJ+NDzJ7KLBO6s2C+SaCM3AZrIKE=; b=SoHILXLriEL/cwTb4NUqQ0u4yRp/xI0wu2FuWpodofWd9qsUwYLwr3fjyHpiF+U1tu B1a+ej8giSUo4g68mKnlqhQqoK/PMc1ZCASs9+ClhD6J52oFfiuHD9Srzkm5lRhBApqT iOU8BAUC9T6liVVFytoIZIst0xsJY/G+VbTnGY/6FwC4IOnzYNRzGndfXkMbKKt50WBs ru4ZA9bkUh2ucF2kL6piLO5q74zMG1+0T7glF32jntEdVDYXn8EqpkJLNv45LuKHTjWS RlKT5PoN58bZU7cia9TkjpT8Z4v9U0n/yxYpiMCDMsj2yf+zxvIh7buN6xUg5CFeRBJY +RCA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1726732765; x=1727337565; 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=Ctbm3biyREeTDWDJJ+NDzJ7KLBO6s2C+SaCM3AZrIKE=; b=gdQqcg6SKIYQxpnnLZNoqs3KvZUq63pEeCqPau6nqXKM7ibGkXGjyezRFzjxirpbbn gDAIYvojwdFmKD1x48rwWvJNdh6WP0fxFiScWDMMSRmEKdLwgZjP7EJBpfM2SutHUIQ5 NN1p21/p/XGYDnKp25iSHrNmmSvtlKScH6xYuHb9X2TXAubwueCUdX+n3qsuYQ8H55Fb dX6rmmXzYikkfPAehd8Scg2L2f2BOguWbqvC7WK3jog6zjp7Q9s3eWkaaNEYOG4uRGB7 3ljfD/M3Q3QhW9HrTJHwqTDouRtBcfXTzBa+e/mnh4jYnO66BRxgf4gkeRHSFnO79LmO GtCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726732765; x=1727337565; 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=Ctbm3biyREeTDWDJJ+NDzJ7KLBO6s2C+SaCM3AZrIKE=; b=mMi3FDQi7olNQVgp09ebsNpNJ9hVf7lXrc7VmOZgyZ41u96sL1m6VSDYTHr3CDYhtK IXDdjopwA8te8wYKYRjASzgA+yCdlS9bs+y3VKf+Uc/dB2L1PKY4wzrKC0TLJw0E9VI4 ooFJ33ZLPBuc45C5jjAKaF5fpGuje3t2rouVvrdnn99Mpsn6qv37vhqksZsW923YaaJh bxBgcp02aaQ6A3wvzOyu8/zmldzKhdkur5OUSOM9w/otgJTlEPYYJaH5FY4H66zud7as KRKSIcOgCaA+Wk3XDQdxEHLe4amsfKfSKy508saxVrAfo0vFjbY+8XzTU/JveseLWeKF YHNg== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWUQ+ECS/KTszZ6rbhahri1UdkjttJMyWdh2mi+LKwPxoy02d3CPKqeWtkiNUewQeDCF0gpmxoef7jn@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxqdj4R+rzrt3xpl7KOGFRuNurK6YqVPWRfO9QKKdPBh0H6oE0H G0d8MhNxvYHJKvr/2NdJNRBSjjzisYrkiwWpCRoVfFThVrzruOd+ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHCD/KQTV8FK2/FIQEaGimUTSD164Vg/khkwBI3drTiedCXfnaQ5BJq7YX/uClFys/uoZyUrQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:2607:b0:e20:2e6d:2025 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e202e6d2176mr76053276.48.1726732765394; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a05:6902:18c9:b0:e13:c6c4:161b with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e20806cfdcfls14401276.0.-pod-prod-05-us; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:59:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:6e06:b0:6db:e55a:1c88 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6dbe55a1d72mr145610967b3.23.1726732763694; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a81:b302:0:b0:6dd:c9c1:7a16 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6ddf9c44140ms7b3; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:311:b0:6dd:de41:fee1 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6de09863103mr18285157b3.18.1726732075526; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:47:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Antoine Riard To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: <92b43444-7048-4882-ab06-4a34616b2c46n@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <82a37738-a17b-4a8c-9651-9e241118a363@murch.one> References: <9288df7b-f2e9-4106-b843-c1ff8f8a62a3@dashjr.org> <42e6c1d1d39d811e2fe7c4c5ce6e09c705bd3dbb.camel@timruffing.de> <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one> <9ebd08b0-7680-4896-aad3-1c225b764bcb@mattcorallo.com> <59fa94cea6f70e02b1ce0da07ae230670730171c.camel@timruffing.de> <4pVUOTuyyAbTJB_rTGNWS_TuR39NS5OoJvaSCyqjezAg265kPnCjXvqohFmWQ5ITb7XFZCJie-uV1AG3pVCI5H54dDuFP4OyomC9yiWDot0=@wuille.net> <0bc47189-f9a6-400b-823c-442974c848d5@murch.one> <82a37738-a17b-4a8c-9651-9e241118a363@murch.one> Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Time for an update to BIP2? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_12138_2041691350.1726732075128" X-Original-Sender: antoine.riard@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_12138_2041691350.1726732075128 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128" ------=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Murch, I had a full review on the updatses to BIP 2, and overall it sounds=20 reasonable. I have only 3 observations, to be addressed or not. About the "What is the scope of the BIPs repository ?" "The BIPs repository is focused on information and technologies that aim to= =20 support and expand the utility of the bitcoin currency. Related topics that are of interest to the Bitcoin community may= =20 be acceptable. Proposals that are in direct contradiction to this mission, e.g. by undermining fungibility,=20 facilitating unrelated protocols, using Bitcoin for data storage, or hobbling mining decentralization, may be considered=20 out-of-scope." There is no need to strictly define bitcoin mission in any fashion...Even= =20 if you go back to Satoshi's writings far more than the currency aspect of bitcoin was designed for with the inclusion of a=20 wide bitcoin script programming languages, rather than just signature verification [0]. Even historically, if you go back to= =20 all the BIPs which have been discussed during the block size wars (bip 103, bip 104, bip 105, etc) some of those BIPs in= =20 themselves are ways to articulate the technical debate about scalability, and the impact or not on mining decentralization. Same if you take fungibility, is BIP 431 good for fungibility ? No words=20 inside this BIP about the impact to have policy only semantics encoded in the nVersion field, forever marked in the=20 transaction logs, and as such eventual protocol semantics leaked by the bit setting as such affecting the fungibility of=20 the coins. Should have all the BIPs in the future to have a mandatory privacy section ? I don't know, it's a question worthy= =20 to be raised. If I have a suggestion it would be to remove the "mission" term. It is=20 implying that Bitcoin has some kind of eschatologic mission, and sooner or latter, we'll be back to what did happen during the= =20 block size war, people doing whitepaper fundamentalism and someone like CSW or a faction pretending to be "Satoshi= =20 Vision", while being to have been proven a fraud so far in front of a public court of justice [1]. Bitcoin has a rich enough technical and cultural history in itself in case= =20 of community's lack of consensus. "Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to the BIP=20 editors." I can see why you could reach out off-list to the BIP editors, e.g for=20 security reasons if you wish some clarification on an old BIP, and you don't have the level of experience to know who to=20 reach out in the ecosystem to ask more. Though apart of that, I would discourage off-list BIP-related=20 correspondence with the BIP editors. Is there any other good reason ? I cannot see any, if it's for complaining= =20 that BIP editors are not taking fast enough administrative and editorial tasks, I think it should be done on=20 some public communication channels. About the "BIP Editors" workflow. I think there should be explicitely a public process detailed to nominate= =20 new BIP editors in the presence of some fragment of the community being unsatisfied with the current way of BIP=20 editors work is done. Let's learn from what did happen with the taproot activation years ago,=20 when there was only one BIP editor, and it was claimed by some he was too slow in assigning a BIP number to the=20 activation logic [2]. Finally, I think it could be good to have a historical note pointing that= =20 the BIP process was originally authored by Amir Taaki in September 2011, at a time he was working on a=20 consensus-compatible re-implementation of a bitcoin full node, which has become libbitcoin and which was not necessarily=20 affected by all the sec issues of core over the recent years. Best, Antoine ots hash: a3efafd1b7a49306a7f7683ae142af088f9f31955a2eaa9bf1d8fd6fcae1c372 [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D195.msg1611#msg1611 [1] Indeed, there has been an appeal of the justice decision by CSW. If in= =20 appeal there is a need to have more technical experts in defense of the historical devs quoted / against=20 CSW, I'm here. [2]=20 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018835.h= tml Le mercredi 18 septembre 2024 =C3=A0 19:30:16 UTC+1, Murch a =C3=A9crit : > Hey y=E2=80=99all, > > Continuing the conversation about an update to the BIP process, I have=20 > clobbered together a draft proposal. > > It aims to make determinations on all the topics that were covered by=20 > BIP=E2=80=AF2, but tries to address many of the pain points brought up in= the=20 > discussion earlier this year, the BIP Process Wishlist, and issues=20 > surfaced by sighting the open pull requests. > > The main changes compared to BIP=E2=80=AF2 are: > > - Sunset the comments system > - Rework the workflow > - Use only four Status values (Preliminary, Ready, Active, and=20 > Abandoned) instead of nine, clarify the meaning of statuses > - Replace the "Standards Track" BIP type with the "Specification" BIP=20 > type, and update definitions for all BIP types > - Declare Process BIPs to be living documents > - Discourage adoption tracking in the BIPs repository > - Introduce Revision header and Change Log to record changes to BIPs=20 > after they have been recommended for adoption > - Update description of repository=E2=80=99s scope > - Reduce BIP Editor role to checking editorial and formal criteria,=20 > reassigning judgment calls to authors and audience > > I=E2=80=99m open to reconsider most aspects of this proposal, provided=20 > convincing arguments and tenable alternatives. Please consider relevant= =20 > rationale provided in the footnotes when suggesting changes. > > Please especially take note of the description of the repository=E2=80=99= s scope. > > You can find the draft here: > https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2 > > I may also open a pull request to the main BIPs repository later this=20 > week assuming this draft is well-received. > > Best, > Murch > --=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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/= bitcoindev/92b43444-7048-4882-ab06-4a34616b2c46n%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Murch,

I had a full review on the updatses to BIP 2, and over= all it sounds reasonable.

I have only 3 observations, to be addr= essed or not.

About the "What is the scope of the BIPs repositor= y ?"

"The BIPs repository is focused on information and technolo= gies that aim to support and expand the utility of the bitcoin
currenc= y. Related topics that are of interest to the Bitcoin community may be acce= ptable. Proposals that are in direct
contradiction to this mission, e.= g. by undermining fungibility, facilitating unrelated protocols, using Bitc= oin for data
storage, or hobbling mining decentralization, may be cons= idered out-of-scope."

There is no need to strictly define bitcoi= n mission in any fashion...Even if you go back to Satoshi's writings far mo= re than
the currency aspect of bitcoin was designed for with the inclu= sion of a wide bitcoin script programming languages, rather
than just = signature verification [0]. Even historically, if you go back to all the BI= Ps which have been discussed during
the block size wars (bip 103, bip = 104, bip 105, etc) some of those BIPs in themselves are ways to articulate = the technical
debate about scalability, and the impact or not on minin= g decentralization.

Same if you take fungibility, is BIP 431 goo= d for fungibility ? No words inside this BIP about the impact to have polic= y
only semantics encoded in the nVersion field, forever marked in the = transaction logs, and as such eventual protocol
semantics leaked by th= e bit setting as such affecting the fungibility of the coins. Should have a= ll the BIPs in the future
to have a mandatory privacy section ? I don'= t know, it's a question worthy to be raised.

If I have a suggest= ion it would be to remove the "mission" term. It is implying that Bitcoin h= as some kind of eschatologic
mission, and sooner or latter, we'll be b= ack to what did happen during the block size war, people doing whitepaperfundamentalism and someone like CSW or a faction pretending to be "Sato= shi Vision", while being to have been proven
a fraud so far in front o= f a public court of justice [1].

Bitcoin has a rich enough techn= ical and cultural history in itself in case of community's lack of consensu= s.

"Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd)= to the BIP editors."

I can see why you could reach out off-list= to the BIP editors, e.g for security reasons if you wish some clarificatio= n
on an old BIP, and you don't have the level of experience to know wh= o to reach out in the ecosystem to ask more.

Though apart of tha= t, I would discourage off-list BIP-related correspondence with the BIP edit= ors.

Is there any other good reason ? I cannot see any, if it's = for complaining that BIP editors are not taking fast
enough administra= tive and editorial tasks, I think it should be done on some public communic= ation channels.

About the "BIP Editors" workflow.

I t= hink there should be explicitely a public process detailed to nominate new = BIP editors in the presence of some
fragment of the community being un= satisfied with the current way of BIP editors work is done.

Let'= s learn from what did happen with the taproot activation years ago, when th= ere was only one BIP editor, and
it was claimed by some he was too slo= w in assigning a BIP number to the activation logic [2].

Finally= , I think it could be good to have a historical note pointing that the BIP = process was originally authored
by Amir Taaki in September 2011, at a = time he was working on a consensus-compatible re-implementation of a bitcoi= n
full node, which has become libbitcoin and which was not necessarily= affected by all the sec issues of core over
the recent years.
Best,
Antoine
ots hash: a3efafd1b7a49306a7f7683ae142af088f9f3= 1955a2eaa9bf1d8fd6fcae1c372

[0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.ph= p?topic=3D195.msg1611#msg1611
[1] Indeed, there has been an appeal of = the justice decision by CSW. If in appeal there is a need to have more
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 technical experts in defense of the historical devs quoted /= against CSW, I'm here.
[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermai= l/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018835.html
Le mercredi 18 septembre 2024 =C3=A0 19:30= :16 UTC+1, Murch a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
Hey y=E2=80=99all,

Continuing the conversation about an update to the BIP process, I have= =20
clobbered together a draft proposal.

It aims to make determinations on all the topics that were covered by= =20
BIP=E2=80=AF2, but tries to address many of the pain points brought up = in the=20
discussion earlier this year, the BIP Process Wishlist, and issues=20
surfaced by sighting the open pull requests.

The main changes compared to BIP=E2=80=AF2 are:

- Sunset the comments system
- Rework the workflow
- Use only four Status values (Preliminary, Ready, Active, and=20
Abandoned) instead of nine, clarify the meaning of statuses
- Replace the "Standards Track" BIP type with the "Speci= fication" BIP=20
type, and update definitions for all BIP types
- Declare Process BIPs to be living documents
- Discourage adoption tracking in the BIPs repository
- Introduce Revision header and Change Log to record changes to BIPs=20
after they have been recommended for adoption
- Update description of repository=E2=80=99s scope
- Reduce BIP Editor role to checking editorial and formal criteria,=20
reassigning judgment calls to authors and audience

I=E2=80=99m open to reconsider most aspects of this proposal, provided= =20
convincing arguments and tenable alternatives. Please consider relevant= =20
rationale provided in the footnotes when suggesting changes.

Please especially take note of the description of the repository=E2=80= =99s scope.

You can find the draft here:
https:= //github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2

I may also open a pull request to the main BIPs repository later this= =20
week assuming this draft is well-received.

Best,
Murch

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg= id/bitcoindev/92b43444-7048-4882-ab06-4a34616b2c46n%40googlegroups.com.=
------=_Part_12139_1073966754.1726732075128-- ------=_Part_12138_2041691350.1726732075128--