pull down to refresh
142 sats \ 3 replies \ @standardcrypto 8h \ on: Chaincode Labs is doing politics with Bitcoin consensus changes (CTV) bitcoin
"First and foremost, I do not like to use the word “politics” as it has a lot of cultural and historical connotation, and I’m always careful when I’m using such wording."
It's politics, rude and naked. I would compare a bitcoin softfork as something like an amendment to the US constitution, possibly even more difficult. Yes, there's going to be a lot of politics. And there's going to be a lot of amendments proposed that are not great for the US. And everyone is going to be accusing each other of black hatting.
To state my bias up front, if they are trying to slow down CTV, I align with chaincode. I am YAGNI on CTV.
However, everyone should play fair. However, if no one is playing fair, how can you play fair? That would appear to be the dilemma, in the eyes of those core devs (including those at chaincode) who control the politically important github account(s?).
I was at a bitdevs nyc meetup recently at the chaincode office, and I did feel a distinctly anti-CTV vibe. I'm not an expert, but I have followed the covenant wars enough to feel like more than just an interested bystander.
To keep this from getting too long, and also to respect chathan house rules, I will try to channel the vibe briefly.
The vibe WRT to the merits of CTV was something like "YAGNI, or at least you aren't going to need it yet." More germane to this kerfluffle, the vibe WRT to reviewing CTV on github was something like, "the bitcoin repo is not a place to politically debate the merits of CTV or any softfork. The ideal is that the github repo should be a place for technical review (bugs/errors on patches) only, having established political consensus in other channels." Delving bitcoin was mentioned, as in the rebuke you linked to.
"Github not an appropriate place to debate politics of softforks" may not be true historically, maybe not not even now. Maybe it's more of a work in progress and "we are trying to shift the communications so that..."
but I think "people in the room" would like it to be true now. I think there may also be people who for whatever agenda (maybe a bad one) want you blocked, and yeah that sucks if they are hiding. IDK if chaincode is "in control" of the github in question, my feeling is "probably to some extent but it's complicated." Whoever is running that account, one thing I think "people in the room" feel is, it's turning into a shitshow and it's putting undue stress on those who just want to do cool collected code review.
IE, I think the moderation policies are largely being driven by exhaustion and burnout, and not primarily driven by politics or anti ctv sentiment, although by and large chaincode DOES lean anti CTV but without being too obvious about it (to avoid getting sucked in to the war). Maybe you're collateral damage. Maybe it's targeted, someone doesn't like you. IDK.
Sorry you got your account blocked for the review. As someone who myself has been blocked a few times in various stupid internet troll wars (not that this is one of those, it's not, CTV is important) I encourage you to, in addition to registering the action in the appropriate channels, also use it to your advantage as a cooldown. If it's anger, anger must be channeled appropriately. If it's frustration, realize that those across the table from you are probably also frustrated.
This would probably be a different post if I wanted CTV. I would be more heated myself. I would be more worried about the future of bitcoin.
But even then, you just have to stay cool. Don't feed the trolls. Don't be a troll.
Try to empathize and find common ground, even when things seem unfair.
Also you're not wrong. This is bitcoin and only the paranoid survive.
Thanks for surfacing this, and thanks for caring about CTV.
To state my bias up front, if they are trying to slow down CTV, I align with chaincode. I am YAGNI on CTV.
To be frank, I'm not in popping girls mode on CTV. I've been known skeptical on CTV for years and I'm fine with the status quo. On the other hand, there is a point to mark from the CTV supporters, that hash-chain based immutability adds value for folks who wish to improve self-custody in the space.
A lot of Taproot features have been also advocated to improve self-custody, and speaking in experience from someone who ACKed the code consensus change in the repository, Taproot was far more ambitious than CTV.
To said my mind, I don't think we'll go to zero to hero on "vaults" in the bitcoin space, with a silver bullet style consensus change that does everything. More a situation like Lightning, where progress are made painfully stage by stage. A 1st version of the network is deployed with real-economic usage, it's gives more streets credibility to argue a consensus change, change enable a 2nd version of the network, etc...
Mind that few years ago I attempted to move the needle forward with the contracting primitives WG on IRC open to all for a while.
I
n the sense of hoping that folks we'll build use-cases to cross the base-layer to second-layers communication silos, that explain so much frustration about any cov talks over the last years. Note CLTV was explicitly pointing out "Payment Channels" in its motivation, and it got activated before Lightning got in prod.
However, everyone should play fair. However, if no one is playing fair, how can you play fair? That would appear to be the dilemma, in the eyes of those core devs (including those at chaincode) who control the politically important github account(s?).
You've exposed the full dilemma. Nothing to add.
We should be very careful for any consensus changes, though that's the thing on which forum if the CTV proponents and myself we wish to review the code. Where we should do it ? It's better to do it with the code under the eyes, and we constant rebases being done. Sometimes a small line of code in bitcoin can change the whole technical effect.
but I think "people in the room" would like it to be true now. I think there may also be people who for whatever agenda (maybe a bad one) want you blocked, and yeah that sucks if they are hiding. IDK if chaincode is "in control" of the github in question, my feeling is "probably to some extent but it's complicated." Whoever is running that account, one thing I think "people in the room" feel is, it's turning into a shitshow and it's putting undue stress on those who just want to do cool collected code review.
I do not think there is any fed agency hidden agenda playing out here.
It’s pure Chaincode politics.
Sorry you got your account blocked for the review. As someone who myself has been blocked a few times in various stupid internet troll wars (not that this is one of those, it's not, CTV is important) I encourage you to, in addition to registering the action in the appropriate channels, also use it to your advantage as a cooldown. If it's anger, anger must be channeled appropriately. If it's frustration, realize that those across the table from you are probably also frustrated.
No worries, I'll cooldown as usual by going to investigate more weird bugs. Unless someone goes to put a gun on your head, you're always free to do so. I've never been bored over the last years among bitcoin or lightning.
Zooming out, yes when you're facing that kind of situations, it's still always wise to go for a walk in nature or go to read something to cultivate your mind. When you're a professional in this space, it’s really important to keep a life beyond the boundaries of bitcoin.
Thanks for the words, and that there is people actually caring about the development process.
reply
To add color to this, I think many in the room thought that the pull request you were commenting on
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989
( BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only) #31989 )
should itself have not been permitted. For the same reasons as your comments on it.
I would also align with this opinion. Not just for CTV, but for any soft fork which for some fluffy (sorry I can't give the criteria) definition of consensus, is agreed as the path forward. The idea being that CTV just hasn't met this (fluffy) criteria to be forking the main repo, not even for regtest.
reply
I would also align with this opinion. Not just for CTV, but for any soft fork which for some fluffy (sorry I can't give the criteria) definition of consensus, is agreed as the path forward. The idea being that CTV just hasn't met this (fluffy) criteria to be forking the main repo, not even for regtest.
There is the theory and there is the practice. I’m +1 on the idea to have another repository like
bitcoin-inquisition to test many iterations of a things like CTV.In practice, there is always value with a branch opened on the mainnet branch, as you can review the code with all the mainnet standard policy rules playing out (and for Script interpreter there is the many flags interacting one with each other, just go to see
src/policy/policy.h sigh) and default mainnet configuration for memory caches.Where is the clean limit and when something is mature to be opened on the main repository, I have no idea. But there is the theory and there is the practice...
reply