Published on: 2017-03-29T08:49:38+00:00
The ongoing Bitcoin scaling debate has become politicized, with one side advocating for increasing block size via segwit and the other through a hard fork. Companies are hesitant to take sides due to potential backlash. Pseudonymous submissions are suggested to be carried by a well-known member of the Bitcoin community to ensure credibility. Bips are seen politically based on their usefulness to each side rather than who suggests them. Protocol changes cannot be made until after a protocol upgrade has been implemented.In an email thread, Chris Stewart proposed a method that would allow individuals to reveal themselves after the BIP has been accepted. While this process cannot be forced upon people, it may become a de facto requirement by the BIP maintainer. The conversation then turns to making decisions based on merit versus financial gain. The author suggests that decisions within the project are based on return on investment (ROI), rather than merit. In fact, if killing the project or running all competing miners out of business is more profitable, many actors involved are obligated to attempt to do so. The author suggests that if merit were important, there should be a way to finance development that provides real financial incentives for merit. Additionally, the author believes that demurrage and increasing the money supply have more merit, but they are not profitable to existing Bitcoin investors, thus making them less discussed.The conversation on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list started with a discussion about the inconvenience of creating new email and GitHub accounts to submit BIPs. It was pointed out that GitHub doesn't allow multiple accounts. This led to a suggestion from Luke Dashjr for a decentralized version control system that would let users propose BIPs anonymously and get paid in crypto for the best commits. The proposed system would be developed using Mercurial, BitTorrent, and pynode by motivated grad students who know Python. A crowdfunding effort was suggested to support the development of this system.Anonymity is emphasized in the cryptocurrency community, with concerns raised about being a "recognizable target" discouraging contributions. BitFury's CEO is criticized for threatening to sue developers, with the argument that decisions should be made on merit alone. Privacy concerns are also discussed, with suggestions for creating a safe space for merit and recommendations for http://gplspace.org/.The author of the email to bitcoin-dev-request highlights the fact that GitHub does not allow multiple accounts per email address. This means that a user cannot have more than one account linked to the same email address on GitHub.To avoid the politicization of protocol-level changes and promote technical progress, Chris Stewart proposes a pseudonymous BIP system. Authors would be required to submit their proposals under a pseudonym, allowing the focus to be solely on the proposal's technical merits rather than who submitted it. The goal is to level the playing field and prevent trolls from discussing protocol changes. If desired, authors can reveal the preimage of the author hash to prove their identity after the acceptance of their BIP.Overall, the context highlights the importance of anonymity in the cryptocurrency community, the need for decisions based on merit rather than personal agendas, and proposals for improving the submission process for Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) while maintaining privacy.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T19:46:46.519305+00:00