Aymeric Vitte [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-04-19 🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin Core's ...
đź“… Original date posted:2023-04-19
🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin Core's communication issues persist, with maintainers lacking transparency on merge decisions. Bitcoin's future relies on lightning and complex changes, but simple changes could surpass Ethereum.
đź“ť Original message:The different emails are overlong, it's difficult to follow
It is super surprising to see that Bitcoin has only 4 maintainers funded
by Brink and Blockstream, but I think the decisions are taken elsewhere
And I think the job of the maintainers is not only to be maintainers but
to do the PR sometimes, since the process is too complicate and they are
supposed to know well the code
And it seems like bitcoin is betting its future on lightning and/or
super clever (non understandble) changes to bitcoin scripting
While some simple changes can allow bitcoin to surpass ethereum, as
usual, like "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size"
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
How long it will take remains mysterious
Le 18/04/2023 Ă 14:40, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev a Ă©crit :
>
> Communication has been a challenge on Bitcoin Core for what I can tell
> the entire history of the project. Maintainers merge a pull request
> and provide no commentary on why they’ve merged it. Maintainers leave
> a pull request with many ACKs and few (if any) NACKs for months and
> provide no commentary on why they haven't merged it. I can only
> speculate on why and it probably depends on the individual maintainer.
> Sometimes it will be poor communication skills, sometimes it will be a
> desire to avoid accountability, sometimes it will be fear of
> unreasonable and spiteful legal action if they mistakenly merge a pull
> request that ends up containing a bug. But search through the pull
> requests on Bitcoin Core and you will rarely see a rationale for a
> merge decision. The difference between say previous maintainers like
> Wladimir and some of the current maintainers is that previous
> maintainers were extremely responsive on IRC. If you disagreed with a
> merge decision or thought it had been merged prematurely they would be
> happy to discuss it on IRC. In present times at least a subset of the
> current maintainers are not responsive on IRC and will refuse to
> discuss a merge decision. One farcical recent example [0] was the pull
> request to add Vasil Dimov as a maintainer where despite many ACKs
> from other maintainers and other long term contributors two
> maintainers (fanquake and Gloria) refused to discuss it on the pull
> request or on IRC. It took almost 5 months for Gloria to comment on
> the pull request despite many requests from me on the PR and on IRC. I
> even requested that they attend the weekly Core Dev IRC meeting to
> discuss it which they didn’t attend.
>
>
> A pull request to add a maintainer isn’t a normal pull request.
> Generally pull requests contain a lot more lines of code than a single
> line adding a trusted key. Not merging a pull request for a long
> period of time can be extremely frustrating for a pull request author
> especially when maintainers and long term contributors don’t comment
> on the pull request and the pull request is stuck in “rebase hell”.
> Clearly it is the lesser evil when compared to merging a harmful or
> bug ridden pull request but poor non-existent communication is not the
> only way to prevent this. Indeed it creates as many problems as it solves.
>
>
> Another farcical recent(ish) example was the CTV pull request [1] that
> ultimately led to a contentious soft fork activation attempt that was
> called off at the last minute. If you look at the comments on the pull
> request there were 3 individuals (including myself) who NACKed the
> pull request and I think it is fair to say that none of us would be
> considered long term contributors to Bitcoin Core. I have criticised
> Jeremy Rubin multiple times for continuing to pursue a soft fork
> activation attempt when it was clear it was contentious [3] but if you
> look at the pull request comments it certainly isn’t clear it was.
> Maintainers and long term contributors (if they commented at all) were
> gently enthusiastic (Concept ACKing etc) without ACKing that it was
> ready to merge. A long term observer of the Core repo would have known
> that it wasn’t ready to merge or ready to attempt to activate
> (especially given it was a consensus change) but a casual observer
> would have only seen Concept ACKs and ACKs with 3 stray NACKs. Many of
> these casual observers inflated the numbers on the utxos.org site [4]
> signalling support for a soft fork activation attempt.
>
>
> I set out originally to write about the controls and processes around
> merges on the default signet (bitcoin-inquisition [5]) but it quickly
> became obvious to me that if communication around Core
> merges/non-merges is this weak you can hardly expect it to be any
> better on bitcoin-inquisition/default signet where there is no real
> monetary value at stake. I will probably write about
> bitcoin-inquisition/default signet in a future email as I do think the
> perception that it is “the one and only” staging ground for consensus
> changes is dangerous [6] if the maintainer(s) on that project have the
> same inclinations as a subset of the Core maintainers.
>
>
> As I stated at the beginning there is an element to this which is not
> individual(s) specific and an adverse reaction to outright malicious
> actors external to any of these projects. I do not think any of the
> current maintainers on Core or bitcoin-inquisition are outright
> malicious even if a subset of them consistently frustrate me with
> their lack of transparency and accountability. But this issue isn't
> going away and I'm sure we'll hear more on this from others in the
> coming months. To me it is a straight choice of taking transparency
> and accountability much more seriously or failing that investing more
> heavily (time and resources) in consensus compatible forks of Core and
> treating Core like it is a proprietary "open source" project where
> merge decisions are not explained or justified in the open.
>
>
> [0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871
>
> [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702
>
> [2]:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020386.html
>
> [3]:
> https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718
>
> [4]: https://utxos.org/signals/
>
> [5]:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-September/020921.html
>
> [6]:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-September/020948.html
>
> -- Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> <http://protonmail.com/>;
> Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159
> 214C FEE3
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
Sophia-Antipolis, France
CV: https://www.peersm.com/CVAV.pdf
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
A Universal Coin Swap system based on Bitcoin: https://gist.github.com/Ayms/029125db2583e1cf9c3209769eb2cdd7
A bitcoin NFT system: https://gist.github.com/Ayms/01dbfebf219965054b4a3beed1bfeba7
Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet
Bitcoin transactions made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.peersm.com
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230419/4bf67dba/attachment-0001.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin Core's communication issues persist, with maintainers lacking transparency on merge decisions. Bitcoin's future relies on lightning and complex changes, but simple changes could surpass Ethereum.
đź“ť Original message:The different emails are overlong, it's difficult to follow
It is super surprising to see that Bitcoin has only 4 maintainers funded
by Brink and Blockstream, but I think the decisions are taken elsewhere
And I think the job of the maintainers is not only to be maintainers but
to do the PR sometimes, since the process is too complicate and they are
supposed to know well the code
And it seems like bitcoin is betting its future on lightning and/or
super clever (non understandble) changes to bitcoin scripting
While some simple changes can allow bitcoin to surpass ethereum, as
usual, like "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size"
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
How long it will take remains mysterious
Le 18/04/2023 Ă 14:40, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev a Ă©crit :
>
> Communication has been a challenge on Bitcoin Core for what I can tell
> the entire history of the project. Maintainers merge a pull request
> and provide no commentary on why they’ve merged it. Maintainers leave
> a pull request with many ACKs and few (if any) NACKs for months and
> provide no commentary on why they haven't merged it. I can only
> speculate on why and it probably depends on the individual maintainer.
> Sometimes it will be poor communication skills, sometimes it will be a
> desire to avoid accountability, sometimes it will be fear of
> unreasonable and spiteful legal action if they mistakenly merge a pull
> request that ends up containing a bug. But search through the pull
> requests on Bitcoin Core and you will rarely see a rationale for a
> merge decision. The difference between say previous maintainers like
> Wladimir and some of the current maintainers is that previous
> maintainers were extremely responsive on IRC. If you disagreed with a
> merge decision or thought it had been merged prematurely they would be
> happy to discuss it on IRC. In present times at least a subset of the
> current maintainers are not responsive on IRC and will refuse to
> discuss a merge decision. One farcical recent example [0] was the pull
> request to add Vasil Dimov as a maintainer where despite many ACKs
> from other maintainers and other long term contributors two
> maintainers (fanquake and Gloria) refused to discuss it on the pull
> request or on IRC. It took almost 5 months for Gloria to comment on
> the pull request despite many requests from me on the PR and on IRC. I
> even requested that they attend the weekly Core Dev IRC meeting to
> discuss it which they didn’t attend.
>
>
> A pull request to add a maintainer isn’t a normal pull request.
> Generally pull requests contain a lot more lines of code than a single
> line adding a trusted key. Not merging a pull request for a long
> period of time can be extremely frustrating for a pull request author
> especially when maintainers and long term contributors don’t comment
> on the pull request and the pull request is stuck in “rebase hell”.
> Clearly it is the lesser evil when compared to merging a harmful or
> bug ridden pull request but poor non-existent communication is not the
> only way to prevent this. Indeed it creates as many problems as it solves.
>
>
> Another farcical recent(ish) example was the CTV pull request [1] that
> ultimately led to a contentious soft fork activation attempt that was
> called off at the last minute. If you look at the comments on the pull
> request there were 3 individuals (including myself) who NACKed the
> pull request and I think it is fair to say that none of us would be
> considered long term contributors to Bitcoin Core. I have criticised
> Jeremy Rubin multiple times for continuing to pursue a soft fork
> activation attempt when it was clear it was contentious [3] but if you
> look at the pull request comments it certainly isn’t clear it was.
> Maintainers and long term contributors (if they commented at all) were
> gently enthusiastic (Concept ACKing etc) without ACKing that it was
> ready to merge. A long term observer of the Core repo would have known
> that it wasn’t ready to merge or ready to attempt to activate
> (especially given it was a consensus change) but a casual observer
> would have only seen Concept ACKs and ACKs with 3 stray NACKs. Many of
> these casual observers inflated the numbers on the utxos.org site [4]
> signalling support for a soft fork activation attempt.
>
>
> I set out originally to write about the controls and processes around
> merges on the default signet (bitcoin-inquisition [5]) but it quickly
> became obvious to me that if communication around Core
> merges/non-merges is this weak you can hardly expect it to be any
> better on bitcoin-inquisition/default signet where there is no real
> monetary value at stake. I will probably write about
> bitcoin-inquisition/default signet in a future email as I do think the
> perception that it is “the one and only” staging ground for consensus
> changes is dangerous [6] if the maintainer(s) on that project have the
> same inclinations as a subset of the Core maintainers.
>
>
> As I stated at the beginning there is an element to this which is not
> individual(s) specific and an adverse reaction to outright malicious
> actors external to any of these projects. I do not think any of the
> current maintainers on Core or bitcoin-inquisition are outright
> malicious even if a subset of them consistently frustrate me with
> their lack of transparency and accountability. But this issue isn't
> going away and I'm sure we'll hear more on this from others in the
> coming months. To me it is a straight choice of taking transparency
> and accountability much more seriously or failing that investing more
> heavily (time and resources) in consensus compatible forks of Core and
> treating Core like it is a proprietary "open source" project where
> merge decisions are not explained or justified in the open.
>
>
> [0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871
>
> [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702
>
> [2]:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020386.html
>
> [3]:
> https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718
>
> [4]: https://utxos.org/signals/
>
> [5]:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-September/020921.html
>
> [6]:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-September/020948.html
>
> -- Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> <http://protonmail.com/>;
> Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159
> 214C FEE3
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
Sophia-Antipolis, France
CV: https://www.peersm.com/CVAV.pdf
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
A Universal Coin Swap system based on Bitcoin: https://gist.github.com/Ayms/029125db2583e1cf9c3209769eb2cdd7
A bitcoin NFT system: https://gist.github.com/Ayms/01dbfebf219965054b4a3beed1bfeba7
Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet
Bitcoin transactions made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.peersm.com
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230419/4bf67dba/attachment-0001.html>;