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 D7ABEBDB for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:09:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vs1-f43.google.com (mail-vs1-f43.google.com [209.85.217.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3961D7EF for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:09:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f43.google.com with SMTP id w23-v6so355366vsh.0 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:09:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Zp3Pjfgh5NQC0rWOEzng34wiInMiaQ9aDdh+sSsMuT0=; b=E+sjGZtq5s9H8cgyvvaMxGCFSCBiDurMbLNbgVSTx7Sh8ZDPj87g7gv7xSepVMI2GP X+iE7kAzIQJ2y8u02znbXUae8M13p/0w6Bgg/U6kYCXxos3YY8WKMh1cEWFPQ8Eux/wY Pb496fhtbOVwJiIz1Xn2h3vkXXOHqJRce59PdaXJ7NlzWUxKIVcjO/C+0SLfU6hVIgaX 6ymB6pZqbiXQIQkgVNKWm1t1PTGNiCLThJMVibnVjfEGqhW5ZqlWjutIA1FYDVtcMXxz F/PKGM6U4m5XpgDVMbpJXoHA88B9fsz4sTSgi4LA13uhuQsSDDz3Sc74Sxm8j405di1Q LktA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohrk4b/dCW7PFvBaFO4fZIno3T5wMRxo6C88Qivz+/J5VOsx2o6 cr9maWzcfq+aoBsn4TUiz+EVuufXdlNhMKs276h634EW X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60A1+KOLTjJKYktanfSC02Et6wXkJhFTk0JzGJyVgDvlVsJfYGCx/XSNQbEkie0gTbACTkTFP2zCgHFQUchszk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:3511:: with SMTP id c17-v6mr533730vsa.42.1537891770641; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:09:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:09:17 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 23:44:57 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Trivia on the history of compact fraud proofs and anti censorship. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:09:32 -0000 It's generally not /too/ important where ideas come from, even in our open source non-patent encumbering world the only compensation people get for sharing a good idea is the credit they receive. Most of the time people are still happy to see their ideas further developed, even if credit isn't sufficiently given. But I'm particularly disappointed when attribution gets withheld in the furtherance of political attaks. In some cases people have adopted public positions that e.g. Bitcoin developers don't care about scalability and then show that, by comparison, they care by publishing work explaining/elaborating the scaling work of Bitcoin devs, but to maintain consistency with their claims go through an extended effort to avoid attributing them. In two cases so far, I've painstakingly walked through an idea with a political opponent in the Bitcoin space in private, only to have them turn around and present the ideas I argued into their heads as novel inventions without a shred of credit to me or the Bitcoin development community. One of them was the case of Peter R and the subchains paper, which I previously forwarded to the list the correspondence between myself and him where I argued the concept of preconsensus as part of his disproof of the orphaning-controls-capacity claim. The other is on compact fraud proofs with Justus Ranvier (again, a BU person). I promptly complained directly to Justus when I saw him doing it. I'm now forwarding to the list for posterity, because after almost two years and several pings, I was never even given a response. This came up to my attention today because V. Buterin published a paper on lite client security ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.09044.pdf ) that was apparently unaware of proposals from our community on sampled anti-withholding[1]. ... and this paper cites Justus' writeup as both the only example of fraud proofs previously, and evidence that sampling coded data was not previously considered. [1] e.g. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2015-04-18.html starting at "The improvement we have is this". Error coded anti-withholding been discussed many times-- and I've been pretty bummed that I've been unable to excite people much about the idea, hopefully that will change with the eth hype machine behind it--, but this particular citation is while not the earliest or clearest description, perfect for this case since the context is that it's a complaint that the same author was failing to cite our communities past efforts on fraud proofs, and as a result they weren't aware of the state of the art like anti-withholding. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:46 PM Subject: A plea for ethical behavior To: Justus Ranvier https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5evvth/fraud_proofs/ I spent _hours_ explaining how this technology would work to you on reddit in private message, walking you through arguments on it. Pointing out some of the details. I also originally introduced the idea of compact fraud proofs to the community (though the general idea was that of Bitcoin's creator, without the compact-- just the unworkable kind) and was the first person to enumerate the missing components for it. Yet, the idea here is attribute solely to you, leaving me erased from history. This isn't right. It is especially offensive because the same parties affiliated with BU use this plagiarism as a proof point that they are scaling innovators while I am not, -- the height of absurdity when they do it with ideas I invented and introduced to them. Mike Hearn didn't have the integrity to credit Matt for the invention of thinblocks; instead he was happy to have other people misrepresent the history, I think you are a better person than him and hope you will say something. ------