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 DD5466C for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:28:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:05 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from so254-16.mailgun.net (so254-16.mailgun.net [198.61.254.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAD38CB for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:28:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suredbits.com; q=dns/txt; s=mailo; t=1489850904; h=Content-Type: To: Subject: Message-ID: Date: From: MIME-Version: Sender; bh=ehKYym9UALQB/eLcVcZ38ZaAX0XKHSSI8FPdw3ergBY=; b=n+LDky08BvJikF+Oq1h4ORUx8k63hdCtZSbVX+jE4cdBsFtQDyII9ZyxpcZVwbLMHYXB/35P jtAw88j86BZP3e8mCXXfs5IUlqSRIC7z3Nme++gvVU1BcbDzJ/fFPC5D/niKoY9kxP3AiBNe LYOIhp6iLNFY7abELmmxEmEhOeQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=suredbits.com; s=mailo; q=dns; h=Sender: MIME-Version: From: Date: Message-ID: Subject: To: Content-Type; b=lNXvX2iX7UwtFgw8igtz7337R9PiV5LkFV5oNZvCdxbepB1JdlIvoChPcdGQRW0cTeN07B U7LnvBbgX5f3M4ccTWsSt1oOS8Bm58bDxnshevQW/Juu1dvfHURLOnOrD2IMwFS9DARqXbBO LX13LBovgL7QY0U8vB63AHsJJUPxQ= Sender: chris@suredbits.com X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 198.61.254.16 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI5MGYzNyIsICJiaXRjb2luLWRldkBsaXN0cy5saW51eGZvdW5kYXRpb24ub3JnIiwgIjJjMTQxIl0= Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com (mail-it0-f47.google.com [209.85.214.47]) by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 58cd50e5.7f4f48305bf0-smtp-out-n01; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:23:17 -0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m27so19143813iti.1 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:23:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1Vl+j7ApAd8K9n4uNXyrcOCWT3hRqWYw8Jys49xX1TXHzSGf04dWNE58EX958jg+6zeTCgqMN9bP9nrQ== X-Received: by 10.107.137.226 with SMTP id t95mr20431474ioi.79.1489850596916; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.137.103 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Stewart Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:23:16 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:46:23 +0000 Subject: [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 15:28:26 -0000 --001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 we = are seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. The critiques of these changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on who is submitting the 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 extremely promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a matter 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 could 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, chr= istewart, concatenated with some entropy, in this case these bytes: 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail can 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 submit 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 level= s the playing field =E2=80=94 making the BIP process even more meritocratic than = 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 original 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 where our money is based on a democratic vote =E2=80=94 or the votes of a select = few elites. We need to vet claims by =E2=80=9Cauthority figures=E2=80=9D whethe= r 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 --001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, the= re 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 chan= ges in 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: 9458b7f9f761= 31f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@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 morning that protonm= ail can support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appea= rs 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 accoun= t to submit the BIP. I think it is worth the cost -- but am interested in w= hat others think about this. I don't think people submitting patches to= a BIP should be required to submit under a pseudonym -- only the primary a= uthor. 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?<= /p>

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 g= oing 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.

T= houghts?

-Chris


=


--001a113ec7b6997508054b02dfc8--