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 B7149728 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:58:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com (mail-qt0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936B8184 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:58:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r45so82777107qte.3 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:58:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ghClAfBCoif4KWUDKDjW3IP3ru16LUH0t88fn56BzGs=; b=gNYkr5DIkbAH5DrCeE3/1M5OBzFBRJbL/l/QefEWhLpmrYS/dMuDjSlOihPNwPBfoX RWf9McB6Cpk88aJjOUl+EYAJPZLqwDHJb/DzvzBOaAI3kR9FBXTn/mEjtXc3D5So0Zno ymqP0sqf0gPjLBe/eFTWSS/v49TGyxqjRLDDZDiDyTOpJto7qmDmxTMbS6zygqQeniev O3LkhAh4HUWTLZFLuras9jL1L4dYvQZ7Qw/Q94P4j+hgDajOXljFs2+RCRmKriWm1QiP 0jMY2papX6+PPlBlF3Bb9b4Z2tK4mWg7JtUlej5VMVKF3IFqUVbh4lF6sSvBuRBg5rSv vJeA== 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=ghClAfBCoif4KWUDKDjW3IP3ru16LUH0t88fn56BzGs=; b=IXZMTMbVVdJXrvsdIBvmh1f14CxD4kvOFArByVitgCV/Qq7bZzOQ4TdS5MasDXA3lP bjcP3FyO3XfqYzTEaVVISVXcf2JZSNV6uMOO6oTVB2Ye4f5NTTl5p3lSqmrCUSWMfrap /CJ0jsktoIKca7PK0n8VKlLcS1i0kWeiUVNNZ5gwP2ofh7cwgExkkIGqUi+RDT1no2OM F28RHMUuVZwYDhd1XDnx4ajKgcieWxTtmjQK7iogxH+EznU3Y/tFHb0QuMxnypImqwbw apohdzcNIFyvpbt2SzhSmA+NMEHKkbnROyVdimIU8YKrOkNXzqhA5fjgvgsGyN1NwTIS Rvyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3i9sDIdrs9MpU+VE3Yp1Z1g+NcozfzptjZMJ9Ho1V5lruAyusb17x1GoUfJq7MGoI4bKV4Zmyn2eub1A== X-Received: by 10.200.3.157 with SMTP id t29mr19605085qtg.110.1489856286669; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Andrew Johnson Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:57:56 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Chris Stewart Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:02:29 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requirement for pseudonymous BIP submissions 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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:58:08 -0000 --f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to thinking "oh great, what's on about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed. And vice versa, it prevents people from being more partial to a bad or not so great idea simply because it was posited by someone they hold in high regard. Simple, yet effective. I would actually even go a step further and say that all BIPs should be done this way as a matter of procedure, I can't think of a downside. On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:46 AM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, there is a massive scaling debate > going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while the > other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on the > topic but I won=E2=80=99t discuss them here. The point of the matter is w= e are > seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. The critiques of the= se > changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on who is submitting th= e > BIP -- not what it actually contains. This is the worst thing that can > happen in a meritocracy. > > *Avoiding politicization of technical changes in the future* > > I like what Tom Elvis Judor did when he submitted his MimbleWimble white > paper to the technical community. He submitted it under a pseudonym, over > TOR, onto a public IRC channel. No ego involved =E2=80=94 only an extreme= ly > promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a matt= er > of time before who they are impedes technical progress of their system. > > I propose we move to a pseudonymous BIP system where it is required for > the author submit the BIP under a pseudonym. For instance, the format cou= ld > be something like this: > > BIP: 1337 > > Author: 9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com > > BIP content down here > > The hash =E2=80=9C6f3=E2=80=A69cd0=E2=80=9D is just my github username, c= hristewart, concatenated > with some entropy, in this case these bytes: > 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b > > and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail ca= n > support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appears it > cannot support SHA256 hashes. > > There is inconvenience added here. You need to make a new email address, > you need to make a new github account to submit the BIP. I think it is > worth the cost -- but am interested in what others think about this. I > don't think people submitting patches to a BIP should be required to subm= it > under a pseudonym -- only the primary author. This means only one person > has to create the pseudonym. From a quick look at the BIPs list it looks > like the most BIPs submitted by one person is ~10. This means they would > have had to create 10 pseudonyms over 8 years -- I think this is > reasonable. > > *What does this give us?* > > This gives us a way to avoid politicization of BIPs. This means a BIP can > be proposed and examined based on it=E2=80=99s technical merits. This lev= els the > playing field =E2=80=94 making the BIP process even more meritocratic tha= n it > already is. > > If you want to claim credit for your BIP after it is accepted, you can > reveal the preimage of the author hash to prove that you were the origina= l > author of the BIP. I would need to reveal my github username and > =E2=80=9C639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b= =E2=80=9D > > *The Future* > Politicization of bitcoin is only going to grow in the future. We need to > make sure we maintain principled money instead devolving to a system wher= e > our money is based on a democratic vote =E2=80=94 or the votes of a selec= t few > elites. We need to vet claims by =E2=80=9Cauthority figures=E2=80=9D whet= her it is Jihan > Wu, Adam Back, Roger Ver, or Greg Maxwell. I assure you they are human = =E2=80=94 > and prone to mistakes =E2=80=94 just like the rest of us. This seems like= a simple > way to level the playing field. > > Thoughts? > > -Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --=20 Andrew Johnson --f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely d= ata-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to thin= king "oh great, what's <person I've been annoyed by in the = past> on about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed.=C2= =A0

And vice versa, it prevents people from being = more partial to a bad or not so great idea simply because it was posited by= someone they hold in high regard.

Simple, yet eff= ective.=C2=A0 I would actually even go a step further and say that all BIPs= should be done this way as a matter of procedure, I can't think of a d= ownside.=C2=A0


On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:46 AM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= undation.org> wrote:

As everyone in the Bitc= oin space knows, there is a massive scaling=20 debate going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit,=20 while the other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong=20 opinions on the topic but I won=E2=80=99t discuss them here. The point of t= he matter is we are seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. Th= e critiques of these changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on w= ho is submitting the BIP -- not what it actually contains. This is the wors= t thing that can happen in a meritocracy.

Avoiding politicization of technical changes i= n the future

I like what Tom Elvis Judor did when he submitted his MimbleWimble white=20 paper to the technical community. He submitted it under a pseudonym,=20 over TOR, onto a public IRC channel. No ego involved=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2= =80=8Aonly an extremely promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a=20 matter of time before who they are impedes technical progress of their=20 system.

I propose we move to a pseudonymous BIP system where it is required for=20 the author submit the BIP under a pseudonym. For instance, the format=20 could be something like this:

BIP: 1337
Author: 9458b7f9f76= 131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com
BIP content down here

The hash =E2=80=9C6f3=E2=80=A69cd0=E2=80=9D is just my github username, christ= ewart, concatenated=20 with some entropy, in this case these bytes:=20 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b

and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this m= orning that protonmail can support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unf= ortunately it appears it cannot support SHA256 hashes.

There is inconvenience added here. You need to make a new email address,= you need to make a new github account to submit the BIP. I think it is wor= th the cost -- but am interested in what others think about this. I don'= ;t think people submitting patches to a BIP should be required to submit un= der a pseudonym -- only the primary author. This means only one person has = to create the pseudonym. From a quick look at the BIPs list it looks like t= he most BIPs submitted by one person is ~10. This means they would have had= to create 10 pseudonyms over 8 years -- I think this is reasonable.

What does this give us?

This gives us a way to avoid politicization of BIPs. This means a BIP can be proposed and examined based on it=E2=80=99s technical merits. This levels = the=20 playing field=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2=80=8Amaking the BIP process even more me= ritocratic than it=20 already is.

If you want to claim credit for your BIP after it is accepted, you can=20 reveal the preimage of the author hash to prove that you were the=20 original author of the BIP. I would need to reveal my github username=20 and =E2=80=9C639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f44= 0b=E2=80=9D

The Future

Politicization of bitcoin is only going= to grow in the future. We need to make sure we maintain principled money instead devolving to a system where our money is based on a democratic vote=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2=80=8Aor the votes of a = select few elites. We need to vet claims by =E2=80=9Cauthority figures=E2=80=9D whether it is Ji= han Wu, Adam=20 Back, Roger Ver, or Greg Maxwell. I assure you they are human=E2=80=8A=E2= =80=94=E2=80=8Aand=20 prone to mistakes=E2=80=8A=E2=80=94=E2=80=8Ajust like the rest of us. This = seems like a simple way to level the playing field.

Thoughts?

-Chris



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linu= xfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
Andrew Johnson

--f4030435b02cbbc274054b043232--