Re: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus

[John Carvalho <john@synonym.to>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16257 bytes --]

Jeremy,

The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. Demand
comes from the market, not the designers.

Designers (engineers) solve problems with designs, but when they speculate
and lead the process, they create problems instead. Bitcoin is not a place
for speculative feature additions. Bitcoin cannot afford a culture of
additive features no one is asking for. Bitcoin thrives in a culture of
"NO." Rejection of change is Bitcoin's primary feature.

There is NO HOPE of EVER getting the majority of Bitcoin users to be able
to grasp, audit, and meaningfully consent to complicated new features, nor
to assess how they may interact with existing features in undesirable ways
or affect Bitcoin's incentive structure. To ignore this is a selfish
egomania that too many devs succumb to. The public already trusts Core devs
more than they probably should, and it is unwise to lean on that trust.

You are of course welcome to try and research and document all of the
details about how this plays out in practice, but you will fail to specify
a path to approval or any sort of clear governance structure for ensuring
that speculative features get into Bitcoin. You will seek and only see a
bias that allows you to get what YOU want. Until you focus on what everyone
wants, you will not reach consensus on anything.

Bitcoin changes should solve obvious problems and provide easy wins on
optimization, security, and privacy. Seek simplicity and efficiency, not
complication.

We have yet to saturate usage of the features we have added already in the
past 5 years. Use those. It is becoming apparent over time that many
features can be accomplished off-chain, or without a blockchain, or by
merely anchoring into currently available bitcoin transaction types.

There is simply no urgency or problem that any of the proposed soft fork
features are trying to address. This includes APO, CTV, sidechain
proposals, etc, etc.

Your aggression to your purpose is the antithesis of consensus, as it
indicates your incentives are external to it.

--
John Carvalho
CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/>


On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:43 AM <
bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
>         bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: What to do when contentious soft fork activations are
>       attempted (Billy Tetrud)
>    2. Working Towards Consensus (Jeremy Rubin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:14:29 -0500
> From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
> To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>,  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>         <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork
>         activations are attempted
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAGpPWDb-T4OB0NKv7O5k9yhDQJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> +1 alicexbt
>
> We of course want knowledgeable bitcoiners who aren't knowledgeable about a
> certain proposal to be skeptical. But what we don't want is for that
> natural skepticism-from-ignorance to be interpreted as opposition, or
> really a strong signal of any kind. Any thoughts from ignorance, whether
> self-aware or not, should be given small weight. It seems the vast majority
> of push back has been this kind of skepticism from ignorance. And to a
> certain degree I think we want to give time for understanding to those who
> have not participated in the first, second, third, etc round of discussion
> on a proposal. It may not be reasonable to say "you had the last 2 years of
> time to voice your concern".
>
> Now that CTV is being taken seriously as a proposal, we probably should
> give the community who is finally taking a serious look at it time to
> understand, get their questions answered, and come to terms with it. This
> is not to say that CTV as a technology or proposal has been rushed, or has
> not had enough work put into it, but rather that the community as a whole
> has not paid enough attention to it for long enough.
>
> The wrong approach is: "how do I yell more loudly next time I see something
> I'm uncomfortable with?" The right approach is to educate those who aren't
> educated on the proposal and gather consensus on what people think when
> they understand enough about it to contribute to that consensus. If you
> care about consensus, you should respect the consensus process and be ok
> with consensus being not your preferred outcome. If you don't care about
> consensus, then you're basically attacking the bitcoin community.
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 3:22 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was
> > going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos,
> Jimmy
> > Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement
> > started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork
> > activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my
> > previous posts to this mailing list 1
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html
> >,
> > 2
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html
> >,
> > 3
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html
> >
> > highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech
> > is very high signal.)
> >
> >
> > Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by
> > doing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other
> > covenant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF
> > enthusiasts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run
> > with risks involved.
> >
> >
> > Answering the subject of this email: "What to do when contentious soft
> > forks activations are attempted?"
> >
> > - Do not consider something contentious because someone said it on
> mailing
> > list
> > - Do not spread misinformation
> > - Read all posts in detail with different opinions
> > - Avoid personal attacks
> > - Look at the technical details, code etc. and comment on things that
> > could be improved
> >
> >
> >
> > /dev/fd0
> >
> > Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> secure email.
> >
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > I?ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other topics
> or
> > to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a
> contentious
> > soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted
> > days/weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who
> > don?t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least
> raise
> > the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is
> > tried again in future.
> >
> > This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still
> > contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not
> yet
> > activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing
> > technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and
> > bypassing users.
> >
> > Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was
> > going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos,
> Jimmy
> > Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement
> > started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork
> > activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my
> > previous posts to this mailing list 1
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html
> >,
> > 2
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html
> >,
> > 3
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html
> >
> > highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech
> > is very high signal.)
> >
> > Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation
> > was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew
> > what we were doing.
> >
> > I?m unsure on the above. I?d be interested to hear thoughts. What I am
> > sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual to bring
> the
> > entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There has to be a
> > personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it again
> > otherwise they?re motivated to try it again every week/month. Perhaps the
> > personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries
> > it again is sufficient. I?m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a
> permissionless
> > network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked
> and
> > no authority (I?m certainly no authority) can stop things like this
> > happening again.
> >
> > I?ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be responding
> > to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but
> > other than that I?d like to move on to other things than contentious soft
> > fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly
> (too
> > many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I
> could)
> > and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an
> individual
> > can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated bypassing technical
> > concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing users
> > Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have hope that it
> isn't
> > is that during a period of general apathy some people were willing to
> stand
> > up and actively resist it.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Folkson
> > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> > Keybase: michaelfolkson
> > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/7158d8ed/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:43:29 -0700
> From: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
> To: Bitcoin development mailing list
>         <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus
> Message-ID:
>         <CAD5xwhhdEgADWwLwbjRKp-UFCw9hHjDsc-L=pkiwW=
> bmhFqBNw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Developers,
>
> There is much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the
> response to them. I've been searching for the right words to share here,
> but I think it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a
> timely small step with the below comments.
>
> First, let me be clear: I am not advancing a Speedy Trial(ST) activation of
> Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-119 (BIP-119) CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) at
> this time.
>
> I'm skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you are interested
> in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let's try to keep this thread focused on
> the actual work. I'll make some limited comments on the drama in a separate
> thread, for those who care to hear from me on the subject directly.
>
> I believe that the disinformation spread around my post ("7 Theses on a
> next step for BIP-119"[0]) created three main negative outcomes within the
> Bitcoin community:
>
> 1. Confusion about how Bitcoin's "technical consensus" works and how
> changes are "approved".
> 2. Fear about the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly.
> 3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, User Activated
> Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, Hard Forks,
> and more.
>
> While I cannot take responsibility for the spread of the disinformation, I
> do apologize to anyone dealing with it for the role my actions have had in
> leading to the current circumstance.
>
> I personally take some solace in knowing that the only way out of this is
> through it. The conversations happening now seem to have been more or less
> inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a technical
> community we are able to address them head on if -- as individuals and
> collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, these
> conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participate
> in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise.
> Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a small
> role in such an important process. This is the work.
>
> In the coming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the
> work is clear cut that we should undertake at least the following:
>
> 1. Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin's technical consensus
> process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be
> formally reviewed while still being unofficially advanced.
> 2. Work diligently to address the concerns many in the community have
> around the negative potential of covenants and better explain the
> trade-offs between levels of functionality.
> 3. Renew conversations about activation and release mechanisms and
> re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have been acceptable for
> Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be optimal long
> term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the Bitcoin
> network's diverse interests and requirements.
> 4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowledge around covenant
> technologies so that in the coming months we may work towards delivering a
> coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to evaluate and put up
> for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set of upgrades to improve
> Bitcoin's capabilities for self sovereignty, privacy, scalability, and
> decentralization.
>
> This may not be the easiest path to take, but I believe that this work is
> critical to the future of Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your
> thoughts with this list on how we might work towards consensus going
> forward, including any criticisms of my observations and recommendations
> above. While I would expect nothing less than passionate debate when it
> comes to Bitcoin, remember that at the end of the day we all largely share
> a mission to make the world a freer place, even if we disagree about how we
> get there.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Jeremy
>
> [0]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/
> [1]: http://r6.ca/blog/20210615T191422Z.html I quite enjoyed Roconnor's
> detailed post on Speedy Trial
>
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/9009e65d/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 84, Issue 4
> ******************************************
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 21602 bytes --]