> From: Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:32:29PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy" > > BIPs are a courtesy in the first place.
I suppose if you felt that you were the authority then this would be your perspective. However in the case of community software development, open standards are a tool to preempt such centralization. The BIP process was created by Amir specifically because Bitcoin standards were being discussed and developed behind closed doors. That process was being funded almost entirely by a corporate consortium (the Bitcoin Foundation). It was also clear that one implementation leads directly to this type of authority complex, which is why he also started libbitcoin. It's not surprising to learn that you feel this way, and it's nice of you to share those thoughts publicly. > There's no central authority to enforce some particular way of doing things. As if reaching consensus with other people implies a singular authority. > > - and it's not exactly a courtesy to keep yourself from getting dropped by > peers. It is not clear to me why such a comment would be accepted instead > of specifying this properly. > > If you think that the version restriction should be part of the BIP, why not do > a pull request? The BIP is still marked as "Draft". I did not implement and ship a deviation from the posted proposal. The developers who did so spent almost as much time writing a comment about the intentional deviation as they would have spent issuing a PR to the BIP. Presumably, given that years have passed, there has been enough time to correct that "mistake". At this point there are at least 5 implementations operating on mainnet that are inconsistent with Core. > > I doubt that anyone who's worked with it is terribly fond of Bitcoin's P2P > protocol versioning. I've spent some time on a proposal to update it, though > it hasn't been a priority. If anyone is interested in collaborating on it please > contact me directly. > > Bottlenecking a proposal on someone who doesn't see it as a priority doesn't > seem smart? I didn't realize I was holding you up. As far as I've been able to gather, it hasn't been a priority for anyone. Yet somehow, on the same day that I posted the fact that I was working on it, it became your top priority. > Here's what I think makes sense: > > https://github.com/ajtowns/bips/blob/202210-p2pfeatures/bip- > p2pfeatures.mediawiki Looks like you put about 10 minutes of thought into it. In your words, BIPs are a courtesy - feel free to do what you want. I'm well aware of your contributions to Bitcoin, but I find the arrogance off-putting. I have spent many years contributing to Bitcoin development and understanding, entirely on my own dime, even paying others to do so - as well as raising donations for them. I do this intentionally, not because I/we haven't had offers. Many corporate and state-funded Bitcoin Core developers have repeatedly, aggressively, openly and self-servingly worked to put a stop to such community efforts. To them the BIP process is a "courtesy" - just sometimes documenting what they happen to be doing in the protocols. And without actual alternatives, that's exactly what it is. So I'll just leave you with this: "MIT Digital Currency Initiative (DCI) announces research collaboration with the Bank of England on central bank digital currency The Bank of England announced an agreement to collaborate on a twelve-month Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) research project with MIT Digital Currency Initiative. The agreement supports and builds on DCI's ongoing research into CBDC, while also contributing to the Bank of England's wider research and exploration of central bank digital currencies. While no decision has been made on whether or not to introduce a CBDC in the UK, the work will investigate and experiment with potential CBDC technology designs and approaches, and evaluate key tradeoffs, opportunities, and risks. This type of research can help inform wider policy development by contributing important technical ideas and questions. As part of OpenCBDC, DCI's open-source codebase and research initiative, MIT DCI aims to fill this gap by engaging technologists, user researchers, central bankers, private sector leaders, and academics in service of a more accessible, trusted, fair, and resilient economy. We don't yet know if or in what contexts CBDCs can help improve the broader international monetary system, or how they might be best designed to do so, but we believe engaging in technical research is an important step in answering these questions." https://dci.mit.edu/research/2022/3/31/mit-digital-currency-initiative-dci-a nnounces-research-collaboration-with-the-bank-of-england-on-central-bank-dig ital-currency https://ras.mit.edu/finding-funding/find-funding/federal-funding https://dci.mit.edu/anthony-aj-towns Some might call this a conflict of interest. A widespread community of independent implementations is not in the interest of those who both make and must comply with regulatory diktat. Then of course there's this: "Joichi Ito, director of MIT's Media Lab, resigned Saturday (Sept. 7 [2019]) after The New Yorker published an investigation into his attempts to conceal financial contributions from pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Although Ito stewarded MIT's lab, his work and legacy in the crypto community have largely passed under the radar. Ito established the Digital Currency Initiative (DCI) at MIT, helping bitcoin survive some of its darkest days in 2015. That year, when the Bitcoin Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to the cryptocurrency's development faced "funding constraints," the DCI welcomed bitcoin core developers Gavin Andresen, Cory Fields, and Wladimir van der Laan in full-time roles." https://qz.com/1704325/revisiting-mits-digital-currency-initiative-after-joi -ito-epstein/ DCI jumps in to "help Bitcoin survive some of its darkest days". What exactly was dark about these days apart from the fact that this corporate consortium fell apart? It fell apart due to widespread community rejection - initially driven by Amir. What fell apart was the attempt at corporate influence/control, with development largely driven by Gavin and Mike Hearn on the payroll - both of whom eventually disgraced themselves. Your contributions notwithstanding, you are in no place to exhibit such arrogance. Best, e > Cheers, > aj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
