Re: Requirement for pseudonymous BIP submissions

Re: Requirement for pseudonymous BIP submissions
2017-03-18 16:57 ` Andrew Johnson
                   ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Chris Stewart @ 2017-03-18 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3329 bytes --]

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@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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5326 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-03-18 15:23 Chris Stewart

  2017-03-18 17:35   ` Chris Stewart
  2017-03-18 19:15 ` Luke Dashjr
  2017-03-29  8:49 ` Tom Zander
  
From: Andrew Johnson @ 2017-03-18 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Chris Stewart

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4392 bytes --]

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@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@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-- 
Andrew Johnson

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8958 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-03-18 16:57 ` Andrew Johnson

  
From: Chris Stewart @ 2017-03-18 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Johnson;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5605 bytes --]

>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.

I think we need to all recognize we are only humans -- thus susceptible to
our emotions influencing our decisions. The notion of identity is an easy
way to form judgements for/against an idea before thoroughly vetting it.

I also think a by product of this would be to curb reddit/twitter trolls
from talking about these protocol changes. It is a much less juicy story if
you have to say "9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b created a BIP to
propose a block size increase" compared to "Satoshi Nakamoto created a BIP
to propose a block size increase".

Note about the OP:

"The hash “6f3…9cd0” is just my..." should really say "The hash
'9458...271b' is just my.." Forgot to change the hash this morning.

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail•com
> wrote:

> 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@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@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: 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d
>> 10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b
>>
>> 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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> --
> Andrew Johnson
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13512 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-03-18 15:23 Chris Stewart
  2017-03-18 16:57 ` Andrew Johnson

  2017-03-24  2:30   ` Troy Benjegerdes
  2017-03-29  8:49 ` Tom Zander
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2017-03-18 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev, Chris Stewart

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 3:23:16 PM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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. 

GitHub doesn't allow people to have multiple accounts last I checked.

Luke


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]


  
From: Steve Davis @ 2017-03-19 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 235 bytes --]


> On Mar 19, 2017, at 7:00 AM, bitcoin-dev-request@lists•linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> 
> GitHub doesn't allow people to have multiple accounts last I checked.

GitHub doesn’t allow email addresses to have multiple accounts.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1079 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-03-24  2:18 ` hozer
  
From: muyuu @ 2017-03-19 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]

If this was in place I would contribute more and I wouldn't have to create
throw-away accounts.

This is not a space where you want to be a recognisable target.

Today, BitFury's CEO threatened to sue developers if they didn't kowtow to
his demands to leave the PoW alone. This is unacceptable. Decisions have to
be made on merit and the interest of the project, and nothing else.

This is very important and needs to be given priority. Most Core developers
and all the main ones except Satoshi have built a public persona, either
for ego or for practical monetary reasons. Obviously there's academia where
everything is about plastering your name as much as possible and getting
cited. So it's understood. Although I understand the difficulty of getting
funded and getting trusted without a face, there needs to be an outlet so
people can interact and contribute in a proper cypherpunk way.

Also, GitHub is quite anti-privacy. So I recommend not reusing personal
accounts from work.

-muyuu

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1157 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-03-19 23:43 muyuu

       [not found]   ` <CAGL6+mEceO2D2ueeVgv20r5p6tsofMLSTN1ExWfGysJHuM5XfA@mail.gmail.com>
  
From: hozer @ 2017-03-24  2:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: muyuu, cypherpunks@cpunks•org Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:43:12PM +0000, muyuu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If this was in place I would contribute more and I wouldn't have to create
> throw-away accounts.
> 
> This is not a space where you want to be a recognisable target.
> 
> Today, BitFury's CEO threatened to sue developers if they didn't kowtow to
> his demands to leave the PoW alone. This is unacceptable. Decisions have to
> be made on merit and the interest of the project, and nothing else.
> 
> This is very important and needs to be given priority. Most Core developers
> and all the main ones except Satoshi have built a public persona, either
> for ego or for practical monetary reasons. Obviously there's academia where
> everything is about plastering your name as much as possible and getting
> cited. So it's understood. Although I understand the difficulty of getting
> funded and getting trusted without a face, there needs to be an outlet so
> people can interact and contribute in a proper cypherpunk way.
> 
> Also, GitHub is quite anti-privacy. So I recommend not reusing personal
> accounts from work.
> 
> -muyuu

I quite agree, and I would add that sometimes making yourself
recognisable is far more important that merit.

If we are really going to go for merit, then we probably need to go
all the way back to examine why is it developers and academics think
they need to have money to make code or reputation to do research.

The best code I've written is stuff I've given away for free, although
sometimes I'm able to leverage being recognized for having written 
something into getting paid to write more code. The best research
I've done has been self-funded, when I did not subconsciously have
a funding agent I was trying to please with the outcome of the 
research.

We need a safe space for merit, how about http://gplspace.org/


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-03-18 19:15 ` Luke Dashjr

  
From: Troy Benjegerdes @ 2017-03-24  2:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 07:15:09PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 3:23:16 PM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > 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. 
> 
> GitHub doesn't allow people to have multiple accounts last I checked.

C'mon people.

Anyone remember when git didn't even exist and all we had was CVS, 
subversion, and BitKeeper?

Get me a couple of motivated grad students who know Python and we can
turn a combination of Mercurial, BitTorrent, and pynode into a distributed,
leaderless, decentralized version control system that can let users 
create a crypto key, anonymously propose BIPs, and then get paid in
crypto for the best commits.

Who else would contribute to a crowdfunding effort to do such at thing?


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
[not found]   ` <CAGL6+mEceO2D2ueeVgv20r5p6tsofMLSTN1ExWfGysJHuM5XfA@mail.gmail.com>

  
From: Troy Benjegerdes @ 2017-03-28  1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Stewart;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, muyuu

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:32:07AM -0500, Chris Stewart wrote:
> >I quite agree, and I would add that sometimes making yourself
> recognisable is far more important that merit.
> 
> The intent of my original proposal allows you to reveal yourself *after*
> the BIP has been accepted if you so choose. You do this by just revealing
> the preimage of the author hash. As others have pointed out, you can't
> *force* people to use this process -- but we can make it a defacto
> requirement by the BIP maintainer. Just like how you can't *force* people
> to format their BIPs in a certain way, but the BIP maintainer has the right
> to decline them if they aren't formatted that way.
> 
> > Today, BitFury's CEO threatened to sue developers if they didn't kowtow to
> > his demands to leave the PoW alone. This is unacceptable. Decisions have
> to
> > be made on merit and the interest of the project, and nothing else.
> 
> I think everyone on the list needs to see that paragraph again, and let the
> implications set in.

We are talking about money here. Decisions in this project are
not made based on 'merit', they are made based on ROI. If killing
the project is more profitable, many of the actors involved are
obligated to their shareholders to attempt to kill the project.

Or maybe in this case, they might be obligated to their investors
to attempt to try to run all the competing miners out of business
and acquire a majority stake in the hashpower.

If Merit were actually important, I would hope we would be
talking about a way to finance development in a way that provides
real financial incentives for merit, rather than what appear to
be some perverse incentives that seem to be rewarding short-term
traders, conflict, and further consolidation of mining and 
exchanges.

The other problem with merit is there are just about as many ideas
about what has merit as there are people judging the merit of the
project.

For instance, I think demurrage and increasing the money supply are
ideas with more merit, but those ideas are not profitable to existing
bitcoin investors, and thus are not seriously discussed.


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-03-18 15:23 Chris Stewart
  2017-03-18 16:57 ` Andrew Johnson
  2017-03-18 19:15 ` Luke Dashjr

  
From: Tom Zander @ 2017-03-29  8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev, Chris Stewart

On Saturday, 18 March 2017 16:23:16 CEST Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev 
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.

I agree with your assessment, the sides are political and picking sides 
makes people a target.
For that reason I know that many companies are not picking sides, we’ve seen 
some bad stuff happen to companies that did.

I’m not convnced it makes sense to use anonymous, but provable, identities 
is the way to solve this. Though.

I also don’t believe people are rejecting proposals purely based on the 
name. What I see is that pratically all proposals are ignored for the time 
being becaues we can’t make any changes anyway until we have made a protocol 
upgrade and came out stronger.
I do agree that bips are seen politically, but not based on the person that 
suggests them, but more based on the content being useful for their 
political side.

I am not entirely against pseudonymous submissions, but in that case I think 
it should be carried by a well known member of the Bitcoin community.

This raises the bar somewhat to a point where you have to convince someone 
that is already publicly known to propose it with you.
-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]