📅 Original date posted:2022-09-19
📝 Original message:On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 02:47:38PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Said succinctly, in the genesis of creative ideas, evaluation doesn't
> happen at a single clear point but all along the idea lifetime, where this
> evaluation is as much done by the original author than its peers and a
> wider audience.
Sure. I definitely didn't mean to imply a waterfall development model,
or that the phases wouldn't overlap etc.
> I would still expose a concern to not downgrade in the pure empiricism in
> matter of consensus upgrades. I.e, slowly emerging the norm of a working
> prototype running on bitcoin-inquisition` as a determining factor of the
> soundness of a proposal. E.g with "upgrading lightning to support eltoo", a
> running e2e won't save us to think the thousands variants of pinnings, the
> game-theory soundness of a eltoo as mechanism in face of congestions, the
> evolvability of APO with more known upgrades proposals or the
> implementation complexity of a fully fleshed-out state machine and more
> questions.
I agree here; but I think not doing prototypes also hinders thinking
about all the thousands of details in a fork. It's easy to handwave
details away when describing things on a whiteboard; and only realise
they're trickier than you thought when you go to implement things.
> E,g if one implements the "weird" ideas
> about changes in the block reward issuance schedule discussed during the
> summer, another one might not want "noise" interferences with new
> fee-bumping primitives as the miner incentives are modified.
(I don't think "miner incentives" are really something that can be
investigated on signet. You can assume how miners will respond to
incentives and program the mining software to act that way; but there's
no competitive pressure in signet mining so I don't think that really
demonstrates anything very much. Likewise, there's much less demand for
blockspace on signet than on mainnet, so it's probably hard to experiment
with "fee incentives" too)
> I hope the upcoming
> Contracting Primitives WG will be able to document and discuss some of the
> relevant experiments run on bitcoin-inquisition.
Likewise.
(Lots trimmed due to either agreeing with it or having nothing to add)
Cheers,
aj
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-07 23:13:35
in reply to nevent1q…hmcu
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-07 23:13:35Event JSON
{
"id": "9c22102af2dff1122adf9147995103cb2c837b0439eb38dd28b169d9c980b528",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686179615,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2ac589e49ebcf69e5e0c0f74981f090043414ccce35cc1264b0db21e4f35bbfa",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c929ba737867843776b71ea7b693e25d6c5f80a471eea49cc4e72e3b2f6854ca",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6485bc56963b51c9043d0855cca9f78fcbd0ce135a195c3f969e18ca54a0d551"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-09-19\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 02:47:38PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Said succinctly, in the genesis of creative ideas, evaluation doesn't\n\u003e happen at a single clear point but all along the idea lifetime, where this\n\u003e evaluation is as much done by the original author than its peers and a\n\u003e wider audience.\n\nSure. I definitely didn't mean to imply a waterfall development model,\nor that the phases wouldn't overlap etc.\n\n\u003e I would still expose a concern to not downgrade in the pure empiricism in\n\u003e matter of consensus upgrades. I.e, slowly emerging the norm of a working\n\u003e prototype running on bitcoin-inquisition` as a determining factor of the\n\u003e soundness of a proposal. E.g with \"upgrading lightning to support eltoo\", a\n\u003e running e2e won't save us to think the thousands variants of pinnings, the\n\u003e game-theory soundness of a eltoo as mechanism in face of congestions, the\n\u003e evolvability of APO with more known upgrades proposals or the\n\u003e implementation complexity of a fully fleshed-out state machine and more\n\u003e questions.\n\nI agree here; but I think not doing prototypes also hinders thinking\nabout all the thousands of details in a fork. It's easy to handwave\ndetails away when describing things on a whiteboard; and only realise\nthey're trickier than you thought when you go to implement things.\n\n\u003e E,g if one implements the \"weird\" ideas\n\u003e about changes in the block reward issuance schedule discussed during the\n\u003e summer, another one might not want \"noise\" interferences with new\n\u003e fee-bumping primitives as the miner incentives are modified. \n\n(I don't think \"miner incentives\" are really something that can be\ninvestigated on signet. You can assume how miners will respond to\nincentives and program the mining software to act that way; but there's\nno competitive pressure in signet mining so I don't think that really\ndemonstrates anything very much. Likewise, there's much less demand for\nblockspace on signet than on mainnet, so it's probably hard to experiment\nwith \"fee incentives\" too)\n\n\u003e I hope the upcoming\n\u003e Contracting Primitives WG will be able to document and discuss some of the\n\u003e relevant experiments run on bitcoin-inquisition. \n\nLikewise.\n\n(Lots trimmed due to either agreeing with it or having nothing to add)\n\nCheers,\naj",
"sig": "df8815fd890e34cf0edd8c61b640435e7c387b615901107d27cc24765b7f992fe75c037c0bf1ae07d4099eacabffe0868346d8d028d52482abd0f02d998f2087"
}