Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)
10 messages, 19 to 20 Aug 2015. Started by Jorge Timón.
Jorge Timón (3), Btc Drak (2), Jeff Garzik, Warren Togami, Dave Scotese, NxtChg, Bryan Bishop
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (16 lines)
> I see no problem with Satoshi returning to participate in peer review. > Bitcoin development has long since migrated from a single authority figure > to a system of technical peer review consensus. What is more of a problem is > this list has degenerated to a generalised discussion forum where any > academic or technical debate is drowned out by noise. > > I joined this list so I keep be abreast of bitcoin's technical development > and proposals. I am sure many ecosystem stakeholders and participants also > once used this list to keep abreast of technical developments and academic > research. It would be splendid indeed if we could return to some semblance > of decorum that once existed. > > Do you think we could have a "bitcoin-discuss" list where specifically > non-technical discussion can happen leaving this list for more academic and > technical debate together with setting a clear mandate about what is on > topic for this list?
Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.
One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions. I know, the bitcoin-consensus mailing list will probably still be noisy, but at least we will have a non-noisy one and the ability to say things like "Bitcoin Core's default policy is off-topic in bitcoin-consensus" in the noisy one... Also developers of alternative implementations may not be interested in Bitcoin Core-specific things, so they may want to subscribe to bitcoin-consensus and unsubscribe from bitcoin-dev.
I already told this to some people and everybody seemed to be positive about this change, at most sometimes skeptics about the potential benefits.
Thoughts?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
Quoted text (4 lines)
> Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ > But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people > chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud. >
Regarding disruptors, if there are clear rules about what is acceptable on -dev, one can simply moderate out offenders. It's absolutely necessary we have a forum where we can share and discuss purely academic and technical matters. No-one can accuse censorship because all moderation would say would be to "take it to the other list". It's essential for all people who are developing and maintaining Bitcoin protocol software, or services that rely on it. The mailing list used to be very low volume.
While we are at it, we should also think about a bitcoin-announce read only list which consumers of Bitcoin Core can subscribe for announcements about new versions of Bitcoin Core, and any critical warnings. Miners and service providers would particularly benefit from this. The list is moderated so only say Bitcoin Core commit engineers are allowed to post.
Quoted text (3 lines)
> One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin > Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions. >
The potential downside is too much separation becomes confusing although I would not oppose such a change. My own suggestion would be try just a -dev and -discuss list and see how that goes first. It used to work well. Whatever the case I am very confident we need a general discussion mailing list.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (14 lines)
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote: >> >> Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ >> But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people >> chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud. > > > Regarding disruptors, if there are clear rules about what is acceptable on > -dev, one can simply moderate out offenders. It's absolutely necessary we > have a forum where we can share and discuss purely academic and technical > matters. No-one can accuse censorship because all moderation would say would > be to "take it to the other list". It's essential for all people who are > developing and maintaining Bitcoin protocol software, or services that rely > on it. The mailing list used to be very low volume.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. But I think that having a list specific to Bitcoin Core development will make defining the "clear rules" easier.
Quoted text (5 lines)
> While we are at it, we should also think about a bitcoin-announce read only > list which consumers of Bitcoin Core can subscribe for announcements about > new versions of Bitcoin Core, and any critical warnings. Miners and service > providers would particularly benefit from this. The list is moderated so > only say Bitcoin Core commit engineers are allowed to post.
Not sure if necessary but not opposed to this either.
Quoted text (9 lines)
>> One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin >> Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions. > > > The potential downside is too much separation becomes confusing although I > would not oppose such a change. My own suggestion would be try just a -dev > and -discuss list and see how that goes first. It used to work well. > Whatever the case I am very confident we need a general discussion mailing > list.
As said, that list already exists, it's just that nobody uses it: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/
bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core discussion?
As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time with little use.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (41 lines)
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote: > >> Apparently that existed already: >> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ >> But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people >> chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud. >> > > Regarding disruptors, if there are clear rules about what is acceptable on > -dev, one can simply moderate out offenders. It's absolutely necessary we > have a forum where we can share and discuss purely academic and technical > matters. No-one can accuse censorship because all moderation would say > would be to "take it to the other list". It's essential for all people who > are developing and maintaining Bitcoin protocol software, or services that > rely on it. The mailing list used to be very low volume. > > While we are at it, we should also think about a bitcoin-announce read > only list which consumers of Bitcoin Core can subscribe for announcements > about new versions of Bitcoin Core, and any critical warnings. Miners and > service providers would particularly benefit from this. The list is > moderated so only say Bitcoin Core commit engineers are allowed to post. > > >> One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin >> Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions. >> > > The potential downside is too much separation becomes confusing although I > would not oppose such a change. My own suggestion would be try just a -dev > and -discuss list and see how that goes first. It used to work well. > Whatever the case I am very confident we need a general discussion mailing > list. > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (2 lines)
> bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core > discussion?
Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment, and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto. The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty low volume in any case.
Quoted text (2 lines)
> As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time with > little use.
I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter.
We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out. Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a decision now.
Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on linuxfoundation?
ping @Warren.
FYI, a few developers including Wladimir, Greg, Peter Todd, Pieter, and Alex Morcos have been discussing what to do about improving the signal noise ratio on bitcoin-dev list. One proposal similar to this discussion was to split it into multiple mailing lists. It was pointed out that the less technical Bitcoin discussion list already existed in the past and nobody used it. Generally the discussion went away from creating yet another mailing list and toward instituting an on-topic guidelines for bitcoin-dev. Gavin, Wladimir, and a few of the others agreed to a simple few paragraphs written by Alex Morcos. IIRC Wladimir agreed to post it. Has it been posted yet?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (37 lines)
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com> wrote: > > bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core > > discussion? > > Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment, > and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so > long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto. > The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss > a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty > low volume in any case. > > > As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time > with > > little use. > > I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev > that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC > we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to > move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit > chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter. > > We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by > offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It > just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out. > Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a > decision now. > > Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use > sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on > linuxfoundation? > > ping @Warren. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
I guess every mailing list should have its own internal SNR discussions.
My answer is to respond when something is off-topic and offer a different place for the topic. I haven't been doing that, partly because no one else has, but mostly because I figured I don't have a strong handle on what is off-topic and what isn't. Let's all start doing that. Of course, someone can object to the claim, "No, I don't think this is off-topic... blah blah blah," and people can respond. The norms will develop. It just requires some relative humility, courage, and honesty.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (59 lines)
> FYI, a few developers including Wladimir, Greg, Peter Todd, Pieter, and > Alex Morcos have been discussing what to do about improving the signal > noise ratio on bitcoin-dev list. One proposal similar to this discussion > was to split it into multiple mailing lists. It was pointed out that the > less technical Bitcoin discussion list already existed in the past and > nobody used it. Generally the discussion went away from creating yet > another mailing list and toward instituting an on-topic guidelines for > bitcoin-dev. Gavin, Wladimir, and a few of the others agreed to a simple > few paragraphs written by Alex Morcos. IIRC Wladimir agreed to post it. > Has it been posted yet? > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com> wrote: >> > bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core >> > discussion? >> >> Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment, >> and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so >> long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto. >> The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss >> a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty >> low volume in any case. >> >> > As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time >> with >> > little use. >> >> I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev >> that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC >> we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to >> move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit >> chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter. >> >> We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by >> offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It >> just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out. >> Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a >> decision now. >> >> Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use >> sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on >> linuxfoundation? >> >> ping @Warren. >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
Quoted text (1 line)
>I guess every mailing list should have its own internal SNR discussions.
Number of posts, August:
72, Jorge Timón 36, Hector Chu 32, Thomas Zander 27, Pieter Wuille 24, Eric Lombrozo 23, Mark Friedenbach 18, Adam Back 18, Btc Drak 18, Peter Todd 17, jl2012 16, odinn 15, Gavin Andresen 12, Venzen Khaosan 12, Michael Naber 11, Anthony Towns 10, Tom Harding 10, Gregory Maxwell
Everybody else less than 10.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:44 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (3 lines)
> Number of posts, August: > > 72, Jorge Timón
Certainly I have talked to much this month, my apologies. I believe most of my posts (if not all) were on-topic but I could still had repeated myself much less. I've been trying to concentrate my usual points in documents or threads that I can link to so that my comments can be shorter. But, yes, most of my posts have been related to general consensus topics and not specific to Bitcoin Core development (that's part of why I think the bitcoin-consensus and bitcoin-dev lists would be a good separation). In any case, my apologies for this unplanned record.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Jorge Timón < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (4 lines)
> Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ > But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people > chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud. >
FWIW, and I mentioned this opinion in #bitcoin-dev on IRC, but I am perfectly fine with receiving everything through a single mailing list. I used to read the Wikipedia firehose of recent edits because I thought that's how you were supposed to use the site. Edits per second eventually reached beyond any reasonable estimate of human capacity and then I realized what was going on. Any sort of "glorious future" for bitcoin with hundreds of millions of users will also see this problem for future developers, even if only 0.1% of that population are money-interested programmers then that's 100,000 programmers to work with. I would never want to turn off this raw feed. Having said that, I am somewhat surprise that nobody has taken to weekly summaries of research and development activity. Summarizing recent work is a valuable task that others can engage in just by reading the mailing list and aggregating multiple thoughts together, similar to release notes. I was also expecting to see something like "individual developer's summaries of things they have found interesting over the past 30-90 days or past year" digging up arcane details from the mailing list archives, or more infrequent summaries of the other smaller batched review emails. Digest mode mailing list consumption is often recommended to those who are uninterested in dealing with low signal-to-noise, but I suspect that summarizing activity would be more valuable for this community, especially for the different cognitive niches that have developed.
- Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507