📅 Original date posted:2015-06-24
📝 Original message:I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response everyone
gets when they ask that question. If you had a well constructed
documented process then you would be able to point to it ... but you
can't. While there are a few bits and pieces scattered about in
different places there is no coherent plan or process.
It is easy to make statements like "consensus must be unanimous" but the
issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you have to move
forward in some fashion and everyone has to run software with the same
consensus rules. The issue is how you move forward is the question that
nobody wants to answer because (a) it is a hard question to answer and
(b) developers see it as a threat to their authority/position. If
people just keep shutting down the discussion with a bunch of cultish
stock answers then you are never going to move forward with developing
some kind of process.
From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven and
not based on Computer Science or and defined process. The issue is that
a personality has changed so the process is perceived to be different
and some people want to hard fork. Previously, the cultish answer is
that Bitcoin development is decentralized because people can fork the
code. Now that some developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a
big problem. Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it
the work of the devil? The fact that there is so much diverse opinion
on this shows a defined process has never been fully vetted or understood.
I have worked on these processes for many years for projects orders of
magnitudes larger than Bitcoin. I can absolutely assure you the current
mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time are wasted. That
should be readily apparent from the recent discussions and the recent
concern it has caused from people outside the developer's inner circle.
Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.
Russ
On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason that
> people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed process
> that does work (thank you very much!) and is well documented. We talk
> about it quite often in fact as it is a defining characteristic of how
> bitcoin is developed which differs in some ways from how other open
> source software is developed -- although it remains the same in most
> other ways.
>
> Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get
> merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized
> developers, there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer
> doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that the code is ready.
>
> Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core
> only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long discussion
> period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to
> comment, and no significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes
> are unanimous. They must be.
>
> The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example, with
> working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place where
> changes define the nature and validity of other people's money. Who
> has the right to reach into your pocket and define how you can or
> cannot spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is that no one has
> that right, yet that is very much what we do when consensus code
> changes are made. That is why when we make a change to the rules
> governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make sure that everyone is
> made aware of the change and consents to it.
>
> Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.
> Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue.
> Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment in the very
> near future, and we intend to repeat this process for more interesting
> changes such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
>
> This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider." This is
> about no one having the right to decide these things on the behalf of
> others. If a contentious change is proposed and not accepted by the
> process of consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at
> rejecting controversial changes. It has nothing to do with
> personality, and everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info
> <mailto:milly at bitcoins.info>> wrote:
>
> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers
> become defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence
> answer when this question is asked. It seems to be it is based on
> personalities rather than any kind of definable process. To have
> that discussion the personalities must be separated out and
> answers like "such-and-such wouldn't do that" don't really do much
> to advance the discussion. Also, the incentive for new developers
> to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to
> influence the code and this should be considered (some developers
> take this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of
> the incentive process).
>
> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not
> want to be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant
> decider. While the users have the ultimate choice in a practical
> sense the chief developer is the "decider." Now people don't want
> to get him upset so nobody wants to push the issue or fully define
> the process. Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken
> process. While this type of thing may work with a small group of
> developers businesses/investors looking in from the outside will
> see this as a risk.
>
> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are
> going to have a tough time defining a real process.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>
> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or
> at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should
> get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into
> Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority of these voters sufficient
> for approval? If not, then what is?
>
> Raystonn
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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/20150624/a0c7ba21/attachment-0001.html>;
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 15:40:05
in reply to nevent1q…7q8x
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:05Event JSON
{
"id": "d28feb03a512ef372a3ada26ebba4ebf4757278d9f7a5bd2c8e1139aad4a41cd",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152405,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fe09b8bc3b13f27e42579b8ab63a325ab25d17e0571ce6b5f141d69b2abe4bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6082029ee8eab4bdecf065e14be7ee8fbec301ed370a3e8d6976eedcd2f2fcdb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"78aa6925095b629d95a9e79aed6ed9da0973239bc6eedf11af42240f0e1d755c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-24\n📝 Original message:I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response everyone \ngets when they ask that question. If you had a well constructed \ndocumented process then you would be able to point to it ... but you \ncan't. While there are a few bits and pieces scattered about in \ndifferent places there is no coherent plan or process.\n\nIt is easy to make statements like \"consensus must be unanimous\" but the \nissue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you have to move \nforward in some fashion and everyone has to run software with the same \nconsensus rules. The issue is how you move forward is the question that \nnobody wants to answer because (a) it is a hard question to answer and \n(b) developers see it as a threat to their authority/position. If \npeople just keep shutting down the discussion with a bunch of cultish \nstock answers then you are never going to move forward with developing \nsome kind of process.\n\n From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven and \nnot based on Computer Science or and defined process. The issue is that \na personality has changed so the process is perceived to be different \nand some people want to hard fork. Previously, the cultish answer is \nthat Bitcoin development is decentralized because people can fork the \ncode. Now that some developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a \nbig problem. Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it \nthe work of the devil? The fact that there is so much diverse opinion \non this shows a defined process has never been fully vetted or understood.\n\nI have worked on these processes for many years for projects orders of \nmagnitudes larger than Bitcoin. I can absolutely assure you the current \nmishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time are wasted. That \nshould be readily apparent from the recent discussions and the recent \nconcern it has caused from people outside the developer's inner circle.\n\nLack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.\n\nRuss\n\n\n\n\nOn 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:\n\u003e I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason that \n\u003e people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed process \n\u003e that does work (thank you very much!) and is well documented. We talk \n\u003e about it quite often in fact as it is a defining characteristic of how \n\u003e bitcoin is developed which differs in some ways from how other open \n\u003e source software is developed -- although it remains the same in most \n\u003e other ways.\n\u003e\n\u003e Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get \n\u003e merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized \n\u003e developers, there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer \n\u003e doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that the code is ready.\n\u003e\n\u003e Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core \n\u003e only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long discussion \n\u003e period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to \n\u003e comment, and no significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes \n\u003e are unanimous. They must be.\n\u003e\n\u003e The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example, with \n\u003e working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place where \n\u003e changes define the nature and validity of other people's money. Who \n\u003e has the right to reach into your pocket and define how you can or \n\u003e cannot spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is that no one has \n\u003e that right, yet that is very much what we do when consensus code \n\u003e changes are made. That is why when we make a change to the rules \n\u003e governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make sure that everyone is \n\u003e made aware of the change and consents to it.\n\u003e\n\u003e Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does. \n\u003e Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue. \n\u003e Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment in the very \n\u003e near future, and we intend to repeat this process for more interesting \n\u003e changes such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.\n\u003e\n\u003e This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the \"decider.\" This is \n\u003e about no one having the right to decide these things on the behalf of \n\u003e others. If a contentious change is proposed and not accepted by the \n\u003e process of consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at \n\u003e rejecting controversial changes. It has nothing to do with \n\u003e personality, and everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info \n\u003e \u003cmailto:milly at bitcoins.info\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers\n\u003e become defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence\n\u003e answer when this question is asked. It seems to be it is based on\n\u003e personalities rather than any kind of definable process. To have\n\u003e that discussion the personalities must be separated out and\n\u003e answers like \"such-and-such wouldn't do that\" don't really do much\n\u003e to advance the discussion. Also, the incentive for new developers\n\u003e to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to\n\u003e influence the code and this should be considered (some developers\n\u003e take this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of\n\u003e the incentive process).\n\u003e\n\u003e The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not\n\u003e want to be a \"decider\" when, in fact, he is a very significant\n\u003e decider. While the users have the ultimate choice in a practical\n\u003e sense the chief developer is the \"decider.\" Now people don't want\n\u003e to get him upset so nobody wants to push the issue or fully define\n\u003e the process. Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken\n\u003e process. While this type of thing may work with a small group of\n\u003e developers businesses/investors looking in from the outside will\n\u003e see this as a risk.\n\u003e\n\u003e Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are\n\u003e going to have a tough time defining a real process.\n\u003e\n\u003e Russ\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or\n\u003e at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should\n\u003e get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into\n\u003e Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority of these voters sufficient\n\u003e for approval? If not, then what is?\n\u003e\n\u003e Raystonn\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150624/a0c7ba21/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "771167a670c043fea1be1430841aff1422e3fa4031b19524d5ef63d0ba947ba05fcee788749dbe5043f4fd1ef2ffc0f5284459a56a85c6b093341d74dc145d90"
}