Michael Folkson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-04-19 🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on ...
đź“… Original date posted:2023-04-19
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on BIP 118 and BIP 119 for Bitcoin covenant tech. James O'Beirne needs BIP 119/OP_CTV for his latest vault design. More experimentation needed.
đź“ť Original message:Hi Erik
> yes, the code itself was far less contentious than the weird stab at forking the network
>
> there remains a real chance that bip 119 is the simplest and most flexible and reasonably safe covenant tech for many use cases
>
> although im partial to 118 as well because lightning is a killer app and it makes batch channels more efficient
This is moving off the intended subject of the email although latest thoughts on BIP 118 and BIP 119 are an interesting separate topic. Perhaps start a new thread? The latest afaik is that both have been merged in bitcoin-inquisition [0] (default signet) and James O'Beirne concluded that he needed BIP 119/OP_CTV for his latest vault design that includes a new proposed opcode OP_VAULT (BIP 345) [1]. Designing and building vaults with the various proposed opcodes and sighash flags (and Simplicity when it is ready) is definitely what I hoped to see after the chaos of the attempted CTV activation. Hopefully more people will be drawn into this research and development area, I think it is a really interesting one [2] so I'm a bit bemused more people aren't following James and the Revault team and doing their own research and experimentation. I think darosior's (Revault) current view [3] is BIP 118/APO is sufficient for the vaults he wants to build. But yeah needs more informed views and you only really get a more informed view by trying to design and build things and realizing what you need or what is missing. It isn't convincing to embark on a soft fork activation process just because a couple of informed individuals want it.
Thanks
Michael
[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin
[1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2lTfS5qMJE
[3]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020276.html
--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, April 19th, 2023 at 01:56, Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com> wrote:
> yes, the code itself was far less contentious than the weird stab at forking the network
>
> there remains a real chance that bip 119 is the simplest and most flexible and reasonably safe covenant tech for many use cases
>
> although im partial to 118 as well because lightning is a killer app and it makes batch channels more efficient
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023, 7:39 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230419/77bcfdc9/attachment-0001.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on BIP 118 and BIP 119 for Bitcoin covenant tech. James O'Beirne needs BIP 119/OP_CTV for his latest vault design. More experimentation needed.
đź“ť Original message:Hi Erik
> yes, the code itself was far less contentious than the weird stab at forking the network
>
> there remains a real chance that bip 119 is the simplest and most flexible and reasonably safe covenant tech for many use cases
>
> although im partial to 118 as well because lightning is a killer app and it makes batch channels more efficient
This is moving off the intended subject of the email although latest thoughts on BIP 118 and BIP 119 are an interesting separate topic. Perhaps start a new thread? The latest afaik is that both have been merged in bitcoin-inquisition [0] (default signet) and James O'Beirne concluded that he needed BIP 119/OP_CTV for his latest vault design that includes a new proposed opcode OP_VAULT (BIP 345) [1]. Designing and building vaults with the various proposed opcodes and sighash flags (and Simplicity when it is ready) is definitely what I hoped to see after the chaos of the attempted CTV activation. Hopefully more people will be drawn into this research and development area, I think it is a really interesting one [2] so I'm a bit bemused more people aren't following James and the Revault team and doing their own research and experimentation. I think darosior's (Revault) current view [3] is BIP 118/APO is sufficient for the vaults he wants to build. But yeah needs more informed views and you only really get a more informed view by trying to design and build things and realizing what you need or what is missing. It isn't convincing to embark on a soft fork activation process just because a couple of informed individuals want it.
Thanks
Michael
[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin
[1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2lTfS5qMJE
[3]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020276.html
--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, April 19th, 2023 at 01:56, Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com> wrote:
> yes, the code itself was far less contentious than the weird stab at forking the network
>
> there remains a real chance that bip 119 is the simplest and most flexible and reasonably safe covenant tech for many use cases
>
> although im partial to 118 as well because lightning is a killer app and it makes batch channels more efficient
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023, 7:39 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230419/77bcfdc9/attachment-0001.html>;