From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:56:43 -0700 Received: from mail-oo1-f56.google.com ([209.85.161.56]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uRD8U-0008PB-K0 for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:56:43 -0700 Received: by mail-oo1-f56.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-60f48d860e6sf5106482eaf.1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1750092997; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=H2AKULWkAscBnTtPpNiLa2hwf3TQHB0xOCQppwWprWpFymPpMOxqz4rbaUr3aup19G T05A0Xx5AI9n1iMxbYKEwVr66Uo4Pkrs2lyC7IkfHZ5AsT5njNetmty6PxcfWlKT3QD5 sWvm1Ze/PBYBo6RC8GEOYmQ8fs6AszOnH9zfw1lbJp4/j4YD111yl14/qvFUBKj9NdAC H74B9UDTLNJGFR2Q017Gm9AgcOC2wNT67prdsESxwUxDpGgiPCHKxXvshM4wYu5iG6DJ Rrbby0kZ7+0hLbbVuZ71xQEgbMqvhHRSN+OARwZedFnAakjcnGImE+mjUzQ9KaDbnWV0 0TFA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:sender:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=bP6tesZisWWWmpFjwIpQKu0IFO9VHS5xrUGsGMmRT+g=; fh=ZhIzdjKrCqJXxBYCyXykr91C14cdljlbmqqvgPDw1Xw=; b=BWiuHxBsfd0AufTlgFyYB0qM8ToLSudxhy2+1wmfQ1tIBsdExBt+4tyyVPxFHf84we YA2ApMo9caxiJLhK4tHQ0Q6xZiMl3fGAwq49k4mLeISZMpHsBhe14VxQ4T2zXzpJuKSu 7w7gdUbcbf2su2u0jjauckbdcu2sPuXHWCa6skA32a/8kTXT2ZJVJtAPIPXWkQcGmAP+ 5JJXj2LGwZ7TuNgvdDIdV2SnJjkqdVu4ap+MMis+5xhsQWxiURAtceLc0tJo13lxABSe ii/7/dWRBfVNrZmonxUxfagMFqDXFALUFcHhhGqkFb4qOQj9bLeTiZx2pbc5X+0woklG ulIw==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=W72iB1Tv; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kanzure@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::631 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kanzure@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1750092997; x=1750697797; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=bP6tesZisWWWmpFjwIpQKu0IFO9VHS5xrUGsGMmRT+g=; b=iaBLvJPhj1xNQFxjztjIzhFTti/gyf1kjYmtkjAcafTBmOb7IBMwk+VEUcIiC+FTmH 2ZqOgea3UIraPQRBZ0LmP30SPjrfmNDdPn69Sc8DiT9+YkuuEP0MrvXB1iaFlwQNVoGy myrL8CzAkCoVAkVtqksYb6Zz+ibDz/bpHT5JPjKdJrr/hS5V5SUVyg8ko+2Isc83JatB E7Qzuve7dYhF7ap/ydwTCjPeLltUXlGA6lXdfETseVGsxH2tn2TUjn/D/gjPM+j1S7kd 5Pg8nAk+Y3mZV0x14pYWK+jKcKtwxB/Ega6/CCjxgqFkinLtWYPAIzM4zIQleMLd5dC4 /U6A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1750092997; x=1750697797; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bP6tesZisWWWmpFjwIpQKu0IFO9VHS5xrUGsGMmRT+g=; b=lUrJ5S0fWzqe7aHsGbHn/f9GdKsQIDYJg/fEZHctUelmQQPifH/jXVcruMyFL+agLU CCS4Z/LMH+rc9mBuyzQ5+FKOPvpUuTtY9ePLH/Ig1v/fqxE2aAh/6AbD9f6HhZQPcahw ti2Vp+ye17Ky9DUHgAne38gSuP4ugOSXCRKyPqvr0qBz/rLahrXY3kmdAm6ImmeZfUkM FbwQdDM7CfR5N6qjzJ4B1yb4QfsUYZvjIcWTyLGBgnQPHJJvUNlBrNUf5XoKzxAKFZVX oJVCT5M2rmu7KdNqHMxispwNFf8TTeuukbjsf0Ko2EIIEhCQPaiSDJHaHVDe+ro7fMzz /mfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1750092997; x=1750697797; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bP6tesZisWWWmpFjwIpQKu0IFO9VHS5xrUGsGMmRT+g=; b=sLU4IXM9CKWlQnwsXUqaHofzotviIY1O1oczqd0g+AOMYpTTKnoKEB65cvi17rJqe4 OSdND1IM+6QWPcjbCfX6BVzJN8n0n48Ern1zCvIkAyJEjvcN+rIIrRNEZKuJRxDFSEqk RjHLoCuiCKKLgKc+wlDi5HBA816XABUL/t4KHJf46db3mpajq8s+Rhee3ohuUPa4t8cB eYekthVuvuOIFkBK5b9c9OiT1g2hMyOLJmRTCDLLWIc+xZtPu7AOZyQZ9ixAyk8EYhCF rpBIp6rmhwZmKmXcO5E5tIztU8JBsgUKZmo5pLCoFmuFVL7/QLdHis1kTaG9BX9pAppx 0ZiA== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCVNORVz33yLEiAJVjxw6VmKlf/dPuvM6EvkFN52B1kyd5Lc4SOYGoFPlIyntSLiHQdRoVMr2dpENfej@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwsDWO2S0DRzHXO/qs96jxv28aQ/zSWTZmDnGRfeLE+9+PrCAJ7 rEjwXm5O4sv1Zbar8uJe1rbdj0RWwJjYcR9PRqOT4qoX6lQU2S+VzK67 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG0JgGLeG9IjCUdsfsMtnkEtGJTCDg11WtYbJtquwzZQwzA6CzRS1fBayhn1NY1j33Cc3bL3A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:374b:b0:2c2:3e24:9b54 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2eaf08766cdmr5511648fac.11.1750092996463; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:56:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=AZMbMZeAp1kfC7qoVz22ie2nm0C0jdMpnoW/bLO0TDQYiG4sUA== Received: by 2002:a05:6871:68c:b0:2da:b91c:91bd with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2eab6ee08a7ls5852723fac.1.-pod-prod-09-us; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:56:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1822:b0:3fe:ab15:5ed6 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-40a7c131cf1mr6078510b6e.12.1750092992807; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a7b:c386:0:b0:450:ce23:93de with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-453345232cams5e9; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:09:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2504:b0:3a4:e624:4ec9 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a572384087mr8377675f8f.3.1750090155703; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1750090155; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=Vie9mEwhR04Rdeo4ISrW6l/LrWgZ4q9L2OEGifVSDzuanXg6yuKT6V/fRe+iNKojjK vRt1+7rmM+YnnZ9adJrnbtksq3iSqSUWxXN6PIj+5o+I0iilO8K/35kVZp5LNjKQ9kL8 j0aax0Yp6LWF6Wa0zv3ztlO7ngsCn5ly+NiLsIT3UlDxA2rrvY4aBrP3HDaVhz5P070p KMor4wnTEs9cpgEewBW9q640K0Jv/+4CBN5TUw3Q+ZsGJ3zBR/gXKZVar7DTAhCJyNv7 m4TRbUWID+vijyKFWXSn9Kp17Nh4EeRtUzV56Sm5eQUUu3SfHFQRdT9FOAGRvaeUB4hw a3JQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=HZkNg3jPXExQ3h7FB1AMPG0unOueevICX2eTa7crDY8=; fh=ow3zOQxxfP/zU4lp+V2z6kLtGWRC+syO3sPNaPmp69I=; b=La1cFoVjbkPtO6n34hvQtiebUqw+Bp4sO4lMXiDh0MvXNCDsT43ZmuAyZSg9Su8T4e C9+rogUvF5GMVoVB5S86yyJuol2LSmrfkWPcPIez9G/6E0NmLRcoK2UVqwK8DsQ3oTIY 09CA20fM1WhCfbSWix3vQ5aWAguiFCDcC8DWnrNICxNH+l7YbdUYBPVewI3vSCaxM9em KTNyyLJRHkCAIL6e0GDjSG9OwcXfsf4QOFZ2lbV4PvUP5R2kGUrxwKODjzWzGGmCwlsv H6FgOxevNpOdsKB9hiBVXHU9RCEM3mbp9HIOlTsV+0SG4oyzbk4IPP7x1DSIqhCVcL5s jL+Q==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=W72iB1Tv; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kanzure@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::631 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kanzure@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Received: from mail-ej1-x631.google.com (mail-ej1-x631.google.com. [2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ffacd0b85a97d-3a568acfa9asi162443f8f.3.2025.06.16.09.09.15 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kanzure@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::631 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::631; Received: by mail-ej1-x631.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-adf34d5e698so583964766b.1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctatnrs/mz13P5SIsPLfdGB+hLSKKyzlXbCHN6Xtt0+RurKEU+IazyekIq9ex/ VtqcgLUn/iy28mflhOfi9YlL6hdmYbqnQDth/h4Mkv0Vvtnnsd1WkpXMiJTkAUqjvUrD6qhfEtR OOBVILKbhYWazSsV1nEggq/S26hvUinSnjOzn8Rmu1bvey35QS0tIB9VNQV/iQ6Co+geuHBQ2E7 nHk X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9484:b0:ade:328a:95d2 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-adf9a2801cdmr1072037866b.0.1750090155020; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4ad72033-dac1-4a4d-a432-1cc525f92e6dn@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <4ad72033-dac1-4a4d-a432-1cc525f92e6dn@googlegroups.com> From: Bryan Bishop Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:09:02 -0500 X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFuwIQ5qT__kEKbLGaZRlyP4qrdZQWukBgnQA6goCI6axhF1LVG99kE-h6s Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core To: "waxwing/ AdamISZ" Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000003d7490637b29e82" X-Original-Sender: kanzure@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=W72iB1Tv; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kanzure@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::631 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kanzure@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.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 (/) --00000000000003d7490637b29e82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:28=E2=80=AFAM waxwing/ AdamISZ wrote: > My personal opinion is that the best solution is to create a very strong > ruleset on disallowing any non-technical contribution on github, and > applying that rule rigorously no matter whether the content *feels* > acceptable or not, and no matter how well respected the contributor is an= d > might rightfully be given some slack. This would be for PRs; for Issues, = I > don't know how much of a similar problem you have, but templates aren't b= ad > I guess. Such extreme discipline is only needed in that repo, virtually n= o > other repo needs it. > Interesting idea. Worth trying. I would not be opposed to seeing this tried. However, my intuition is that manual, vigorous disciplined moderation like that is difficult to execute especially across many people, compared to systems that push that discipline into automation mechanisms, such as "must apply to post" or "first-timers have their posts moderated" or other variations. I think the biggest problems arise when you insist that there is *no* place > for what you see as "brigading", "sock puppetry" etc. I have seen several > times in the past (most notably around the blocksize wars) where many hig= hly > Nobody can stop such discussion forums from being created anywhere on the Internet. There will always be a place so long as at least one person wants to publicly discuss an idea or concept. I recall there were various "pro block size wars" discussion channels during that time period. > respected engineers dismissed all opposing opinions as sock puppetry. Thi= s > is not realistic, nor is it healthy. If you stuff all contrary opinions > (uneducated or not!) into a garbage bin that you label "politics" (imagin= e > the phrase "go > I have some confusion here: is this a discussion about existing public communication channels and allowing arbitrary content posting? is it about what an individual does and what they choose to engage with or not engage in? Is it a condemnation of the aggregate behavior of the volunteer developers? 1) Existing communication channels: see my previous text on compelled platforming of speech in my original email. 2) Whether individuals choose to engage or label it "politics" or "cool random" or "trash bin" or any other label they choose: This is entirely up to the individual level and cannot be regulated. Nor can they be forced to participate or discuss things they don't want to discuss or aren't interested in. However, sometimes people for example do engage in online arguments, against their better judgment haha. 3) Aggregate group behavior: this one is likely more of an issue of narratives and perceptions around group behavior in aggregate. For example, a perception that "respected engineers dismissed all opposing opinions as sockpuppetry" in the incident you are referencing when there was, to my recollection, extensive prolonged good faith engagement to a radical extent. Have we such a short memory? Of course, when such engagement does not lead to a desired outcome, it's easy to spin a narrative of non-cooperation or non-engagement ("you didn't cause the outcome that we demanded! if you did not come to our conclusion then you did not do any consideration!" -- see how easy it is?). > and discuss it on bitcoin-politics" with the tacit assumption that no one > serious is ever going to read that dumpster fire), it invites the exact > conflict you're trying to avoid. I suggest "bitcoin policy" as a general > title for such things, > I don't see my original goal as "avoid conflict". It was about creating an online space exclusively for bitcoin developers that want to work together on bitcoin development. I posit that even with such an exclusive space, and even if it had higher adoption than the current private development efforts, that there would still be various online fora with various people of all kinds (angry, confused, informed, etc), or even cool-headed non-confused people that developers simply don't have time or interest to individually read-- or maybe they would; who knows! But it's separate from having a place for bitcoin development. > If [a bitcoin-policy fora] doesn't end up being a place that serious > people talk seriously, then of course it will have failed in the intentio= n. > That... might be okay? Who's fault is that if "serious people", such as "serious developers", don't wish to participate in those fora? Does fault-finding even matter there? And, if there is non-participation from "serious developers" or other "serious people", the default assumption should not be "therefore we need to clutter up public developer communication channels" - which in some ways seems sort of paternalistic, on the order of "developers can't decide for themselves how to hear from users or what to individually work on"- thankfully nobody has explicitly asserted this, although a few replies I received on X.com seem pretty close to it...... - Bryan https://x.com/kanzure --=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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= CABaSBaw1u-9UptejUNwObYkk3POLF5LZ6UJqX14RzYyezvWFJQ%40mail.gmail.com. --00000000000003d7490637b29e82 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:2= 8=E2=80=AFAM waxwing/ AdamISZ <eka= ggata@gmail.com> wrote:
My personal opinion is that the best solution is to cre= ate a very strong ruleset on disallowing any non-technical contribution on = github, and applying that rule rigorously no matter whether the content *fe= els* acceptable or not, and no matter how well respected the contributor is= and might rightfully be given some slack. This would be for PRs; for Issue= s, I don't know how much of a similar problem you have, but templates a= ren't bad I guess. Such extreme discipline is only needed in that repo,= virtually no other repo needs it.

In= teresting idea. Worth trying. I would not be opposed to seeing this tried. = However, my intuition is that manual, vigorous disciplined moderation like = that is difficult to execute especially across many people, compared to sys= tems that push that discipline into automation mechanisms, such as "mu= st apply to post" or "first-timers have their posts moderated&quo= t; or other variations.

I think the biggest problems arise when you insist = that there is *no* place for what you see as "brigading", "s= ock puppetry" etc. I have seen several times in the past (most notably= around the blocksize wars) where many highly

Nobody can stop such discussion forums from being created anywhere= on the Internet. There will always be a place so long as at least one pers= on wants to publicly discuss an idea or concept. I recall there were variou= s "pro block size wars" discussion channels during that time peri= od.
=C2=A0
respected engineers dismissed all opposing opinions as sock puppetry= . This is not realistic, nor is it healthy. If you stuff all contrary opini= ons (uneducated or not!) into a garbage bin that you label "politics&q= uot; (imagine the phrase "go

I h= ave some confusion here: is this a discussion about existing public communi= cation channels and allowing arbitrary content posting? is it about what an= individual does and what they choose to engage with or not engage in? Is i= t a condemnation of the aggregate behavior of the volunteer developers?

1) Existing communication channels: see my previous t= ext on compelled platforming of speech in my original email.=C2=A0

2) Whether individuals choose to engage or label it "= politics" or "cool random" or "trash bin" or any o= ther label they choose: This is entirely up to the individual level and can= not be regulated. Nor can they be forced to participate or discuss things t= hey don't want to discuss or aren't interested in. However, sometim= es people for example do engage in online arguments, against their better j= udgment haha.

3) Aggregate group behavior: this on= e is likely more of an issue of narratives and perceptions around group beh= avior in aggregate. For example, a perception that "respected engineer= s dismissed all opposing opinions as sockpuppetry" in the incident you= are referencing when there was, to my recollection, extensive prolonged go= od faith engagement to a radical extent. Have we such a short memory? Of co= urse, when such engagement does not lead to a desired outcome, it's eas= y to spin a narrative of non-cooperation or non-engagement ("you didn&= #39;t cause the outcome that we demanded! if you did not come to our conclu= sion then you did not do any consideration!" -- see how easy it is?).<= /div>
=C2=A0
and discuss it on bitcoin-politics" with the tacit assumption that = no one serious is ever going to read that dumpster fire), it invites the ex= act conflict you're trying to avoid. I suggest "bitcoin policy&quo= t; as a general title for such things,

I don't see my original goal as "avoid conflict". It was ab= out creating an online space exclusively for bitcoin developers that want t= o work together on bitcoin development. I posit that even with such an excl= usive space, and even if it had higher adoption than the current private de= velopment efforts, that there would still be various online fora with vario= us people of all kinds (angry, confused, informed, etc), or even cool-heade= d non-confused people that developers simply don't have time or interes= t to individually read-- or maybe they would; who knows! But it's separ= ate from having a place for bitcoin development.
=C2=A0
If [a bitcoin-policy for= a] doesn't end up being a place that serious people talk seriously, the= n of course it will have failed in the intention.
That... might be okay? Who's fault is that if "seriou= s people", such as "serious developers", don't wish to p= articipate in those fora? Does fault-finding even matter there? And, if the= re is non-participation from "serious developers" or other "= serious people", the default assumption should not be "therefore = we need to clutter up public developer communication channels" - which= in some ways seems sort of paternalistic, on the order of "developers= can't decide for themselves how to hear from users or what to individu= ally work on"- thankfully nobody has explicitly asserted this, althoug= h a few replies I received on X.com seem pretty close to it......


=

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms= gid/bitcoindev/CABaSBaw1u-9UptejUNwObYkk3POLF5LZ6UJqX14RzYyezvWFJQ%40mail.g= mail.com.
--00000000000003d7490637b29e82--