đź“… Original date posted:2017-03-18
đź“ť Original message: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 <person I've been annoyed by in the past> 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 at 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’t 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 — 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 at protonmail.com
>
> BIP content down here
>
> The hash “6f3…9cd0” is just my github username, christewart, 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’s technical merits. This levels the
> playing field — 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
> “639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b”
>
> *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 — or the votes of a select few
> elites. We need to vet claims by “authority figures” whether it is Jihan
> Wu, Adam Back, Roger Ver, or Greg Maxwell. I assure you they are human —
> and prone to mistakes — 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
Andrew Johnson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170318/a41a9a1a/attachment.html>;
Andrew Johnson [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lf…zuul6
2023-06-07 17:57:20
in reply to nevent1q…tc4j
Author Public Key
npub1lf5jdpupmcelz945y09tzawew6pqs5wkkp6dppeujgxxnqltgufsmzuul6Published at
2023-06-07 17:57:20Event JSON
{
"id": "d1aaeab474a8e793295dca64824a0a6dcf887ce27b53efa8050fcc0d49a8a228",
"pubkey": "fa69268781de33f116b423cab175d976820851d6b074d0873c920c6983eb4713",
"created_at": 1686160640,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4a8e56245ca7bc310fc88bcec5e4bf8dd2a6efa39fc3e9a9330d5d9b3ac8b72d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d4b86eeca18270d1046a0ffcc90c15a86bb5e61e0dc6f663d9793fd3cb12a021",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e3e3813ca5b2f45117ae42a2a1c99f5c6bd172c115acc2538066aad916544817"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-18\n📝 Original message:I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely\ndata-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to\nthinking \"oh great, what's \u003cperson I've been annoyed by in the past\u003e on\nabout now?\" when seeing something posted or proposed.\n\nAnd vice versa, it prevents people from being more partial to a bad or not\nso great idea simply because it was posited by someone they hold in high\nregard.\n\nSimple, yet effective. I would actually even go a step further and say\nthat all BIPs should be done this way as a matter of procedure, I can't\nthink of a downside.\n\n\nOn Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:46 AM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, there is a massive scaling debate\n\u003e going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while the\n\u003e other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on the\n\u003e topic but I won’t discuss them here. The point of the matter is we are\n\u003e seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. The critiques of these\n\u003e changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on who is submitting the\n\u003e BIP -- not what it actually contains. This is the worst thing that can\n\u003e happen in a meritocracy.\n\u003e\n\u003e *Avoiding politicization of technical changes in the future*\n\u003e\n\u003e I like what Tom Elvis Judor did when he submitted his MimbleWimble white\n\u003e paper to the technical community. He submitted it under a pseudonym, over\n\u003e TOR, onto a public IRC channel. No ego involved — only an extremely\n\u003e promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a matter\n\u003e of time before who they are impedes technical progress of their system.\n\u003e\n\u003e I propose we move to a pseudonymous BIP system where it is required for\n\u003e the author submit the BIP under a pseudonym. For instance, the format could\n\u003e be something like this:\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP: 1337\n\u003e\n\u003e Author: 9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b at protonmail.com\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP content down here\n\u003e\n\u003e The hash “6f3…9cd0” is just my github username, christewart, concatenated\n\u003e with some entropy, in this case these bytes:\n\u003e 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b\n\u003e\n\u003e and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail can\n\u003e support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appears it\n\u003e cannot support SHA256 hashes.\n\u003e\n\u003e There is inconvenience added here. You need to make a new email address,\n\u003e you need to make a new github account to submit the BIP. I think it is\n\u003e worth the cost -- but am interested in what others think about this. I\n\u003e don't think people submitting patches to a BIP should be required to submit\n\u003e under a pseudonym -- only the primary author. This means only one person\n\u003e has to create the pseudonym. From a quick look at the BIPs list it looks\n\u003e like the most BIPs submitted by one person is ~10. This means they would\n\u003e have had to create 10 pseudonyms over 8 years -- I think this is\n\u003e reasonable.\n\u003e\n\u003e *What does this give us?*\n\u003e\n\u003e This gives us a way to avoid politicization of BIPs. This means a BIP can\n\u003e be proposed and examined based on it’s technical merits. This levels the\n\u003e playing field — making the BIP process even more meritocratic than it\n\u003e already is.\n\u003e\n\u003e If you want to claim credit for your BIP after it is accepted, you can\n\u003e reveal the preimage of the author hash to prove that you were the original\n\u003e author of the BIP. I would need to reveal my github username and\n\u003e “639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b”\n\u003e\n\u003e *The Future*\n\u003e Politicization of bitcoin is only going to grow in the future. We need to\n\u003e make sure we maintain principled money instead devolving to a system where\n\u003e our money is based on a democratic vote — or the votes of a select few\n\u003e elites. We need to vet claims by “authority figures” whether it is Jihan\n\u003e Wu, Adam Back, Roger Ver, or Greg Maxwell. I assure you they are human —\n\u003e and prone to mistakes — just like the rest of us. This seems like a simple\n\u003e way to level the playing field.\n\u003e\n\u003e Thoughts?\n\u003e\n\u003e -Chris\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-- \nAndrew Johnson\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170318/a41a9a1a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "31040223664911ec76f9baa17e795fd7f615b35be7f1e4cb60fcd9b98e050186f45343cc4a9d81256d1180c7a7f4cc6ccb37a339dfee590860caf437d5448e99"
}