Who moderates bitcoin-dev mailing list?

[piotr_n]

I remember Gavin Andresen saying that the serious bitcoin development debate is at the mailing list now, because the bitcointalk.org forum turned into something he didn't like anymore.

Personally I like bitcointalk forum. It was started by Satoshi himself and there is practically zero censorship here, even if you say to the mod that he's an idiot.
It's definitely my favourite bitcoin forum.

Anyway, I sometimes read the mailing list. Now they have this thread there, about the user activated soft fork:
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg04774.html
 
USAF against the miners majority - for anyone who knows about how bitcoin works, it's obviously a crazy idea.
But it's ok - kids should also have their time to speak and feel important, I really don't mind.
Except that the kids seem to be establishing some kind of cartel, where they don't want to listen to the adults anymore...

So here is the story from today.
This topic I mentioned before, there was this man saying:

Code:

There isn't a flag day to set. If the major economic organs like exchanges run 
the BIP, non-signalling miners simply wont get paid (starting October 1st) and 
their blocks will be rejected. Miners will have the choice to signal, or find 
something else profitable to mine. In turn, this will trigger the existing 
segwit deployment for everyone who has already upgraded to segwit compatible 
node software (currently Bitcoin Core 0.13.1, 0.13.2, 0.14.0, Bitcoin Knots 
0.13.1+, and bcoin) regardless of whether they run this BIP or not.

But yes, it goes without saying that this BIP would need to have buy-in from 
major economic organs, especially fiat egress points, before being deployed. 
Failing that, a second deployment of segwit with a flag day, or preferably 
using the bip-uaversionbits-strong BIP9/flagday hybrid would be required.

So then I tried to answer:

Code:

You're insane, man. 

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining 
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up. 

There is absolutely no way the UASF can work. 
Exchanges would be insane to even raise their support for it. 
Stop wasting your time, for your own sake. 

Few minutes later I got the message from the mailing list:

Code:

Your request to the bitcoin-dev mailing list

    Posting of your message titled "Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit"

has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:

"[No reason given]"

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at:

    bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org

OK... maybe he didn't like me swearing... lets try again with a more kids friendly syntax:

Code:

I think you don't realize what you are talking about. 

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining 
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to remove them from the business. 

There is absolutely no way the UASF can work against the miners majority. 

... few minutes later:

Code:

Your request to the bitcoin-dev mailing list

    Posting of your message titled "Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit"

has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:

"In the name of Wu, this post shall not pass."

In case you missed it: "In the name of Wu, this post shall not pass."

Which brings me to the question:

Who moderates bitcoin-dev mailing list?
Why are the actual serious developers using this mailing list?
What is so special about it and who do I have to fuck to get my messages through?

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

I think you ran into a problem because bitcoin-dev is meant for serious discussion among developers. Anyone can post but off topic posts will probably be deleted. I have been reading the list for years but have never posted. Here are guidelines:

This list is lightly moderated.

- No offensive posts, no personal attacks.
- Posts must concern development of bitcoin protocol.
- Posts should be technical or academic in nature.
- Generally encouraged: patches, notification of pull requests, BIP proposals, academic paper announcements. And discussions that follow.
- Generally discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jokes, +1s, non-technical bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data, moderation concerns.
- Detailed patch discussion generally better on a GitHub PR.
- Meta-discussion is better on bitcoin-discuss.

I have no idea who the moderator is sorry.

[piotr_n]

I think you ran into a problem because bitcoin-dev is meant for serious discussion among developers.

Well, than I think its missing the mission.

[cr1776]

I think you ran into a problem because bitcoin-dev is meant for serious discussion among developers.

Well, than I think its missing the mission.

You could try bitcoin-discuss instead.

[piotr_n]

I think you ran into a problem because bitcoin-dev is meant for serious discussion among developers.

Well, than I think its missing the mission.

You could try bitcoin-discuss instead.

It's not the point.

I just want to know who controls it.
Why cant I say that UASF is a crazy idea?
But I can post a date for uasf..

[achow101]

This email should have what you want: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011591.html

I don't think that list of moderators has changed.

I think the reason that your emails are being rejected is that you are not adding anything to the topic. Your posts are not constructive, you don't provide any reason except "You're stupid/wrong/insane". This is both toxic and not conducive to discussion, so your mails are being denied. You say that it won't work, but provide no additional reasoning or arguments to back up that statement. The mailing list is for discussion, so you have to have arguments that people can discuss, not just "You're wrong".

[cr1776]

I think you ran into a problem because bitcoin-dev is meant for serious discussion among developers.

Well, than I think its missing the mission.

You could try bitcoin-discuss instead.

It's not the point.

I just want to know who controls it.
Why cant I say that UASF is a crazy idea?
But I can post a date for uasf..

Yeah. I would guess it isn't technical enough with enough specific, constructive content which was why it didn't go through.

Maybe ask on Freenode #bitcoin-dev to see who is modding it now.

[piotr_n]

I think the reason that your emails are being rejected is that you are not adding anything to the topic. Your posts are not constructive, you don't provide any reason except "You're stupid/wrong/insane". This is both toxic and not conducive to discussion, so your mails are being denied. You say that it won't work, but provide no additional reasoning or arguments to back up that statement. The mailing list is for discussion, so you have to have arguments that people can discuss, not just "You're wrong".

How is it not constructive to say that their system just isn't going to work and all their further efforts do not have to be wasted?

It is true - trust me. For all I know I'm doing them a favour.

How otherwise should I be trying to say it?

[achow101]

I think the reason that your emails are being rejected is that you are not adding anything to the topic. Your posts are not constructive, you don't provide any reason except "You're stupid/wrong/insane". This is both toxic and not conducive to discussion, so your mails are being denied. You say that it won't work, but provide no additional reasoning or arguments to back up that statement. The mailing list is for discussion, so you have to have arguments that people can discuss, not just "You're wrong".

How is it not constructive to say that their system just isn't going to work and all their further efforts do not have to be wasted?

It is true - trust me.

How otherwise should I be trying to say it?

Explain WHY it won't work. Just saying that it won't work with no additional reasoning as if you are some all-knowing power better than everyone else is not conducive to discussion. Explain WHY, give reasoning, give an argument.

[piotr_n]

I think the reason that your emails are being rejected is that you are not adding anything to the topic. Your posts are not constructive, you don't provide any reason except "You're stupid/wrong/insane". This is both toxic and not conducive to discussion, so your mails are being denied. You say that it won't work, but provide no additional reasoning or arguments to back up that statement. The mailing list is for discussion, so you have to have arguments that people can discuss, not just "You're wrong".

How is it not constructive to say that their system just isn't going to work and all their further efforts do not have to be wasted?

It is true - trust me.

How otherwise should I be trying to say it?

Explain WHY it won't work. Just saying that it won't work with no additional reasoning as if you are some all-knowing power better than everyone else is not conducive to discussion. Explain WHY, give reasoning, give an argument.

Yeah, like the guy who claims it will work had explained why.

It won't work -the guy is crazy. And if you believe it can work, your crazy as well.

I think the moment people have to explain why such ideas is crazy, would be the moment human race doesn't survive, ending up eaten by zombies.
I don't believe we are there yet.
And I like forums where I can just say it

[belcher]

I have no idea about the mods but this point isn't right.

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to remove them from the business.

If miners do this then the exchanges can start waiting for many more confirmations, which will work as long as the attacking coalition is less than 50%

But what's most likely to happen is the miners will swallow their pride and set up their systems so they don't mine invalid blocks from the point of view of the new soft fork rules.

I'm reminded of that time soon after the first halvening when some miners patched their node to continue creating 50btc per block. Their blocks were rejected by everyone and they couldn't find a buyer for their newly-mined bitcoins, but instead of throwing a tantrum and trying to re-org the chain those miners just undid their patches and started mining 25btc blocks.

In bitcoin the miners work for the economic majority. If those two parties disagree then the economic majority always wins, because they are the ones who actually give value to the bitcoins by holding and trading them.

[piotr_n]

I have no idea about the mods but this point isn't right.

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to remove them from the business.

If miners do this then the exchanges can start waiting for many more confirmations, which will work as long as the attacking coalition is less than 50%

Yeah.. and how long are they going to wait?

But what's most likely to happen is the miners will swallow their pride and set up their systems so they don't mine invalid blocks from the point of view of the new soft fork rules.

It's not about a pride, but about the money.

You can't win it - UASF won't work, because the money is at the miner's side.
When you think about this, it's where the money come from.
Its going to stick to the mother

[Quickseller]

I have no idea about the mods but this point isn't right.

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to remove them from the business.

If miners do this then the exchanges can start waiting for many more confirmations, which will work as long as the attacking coalition is less than 50%

Since about two weeks after signaling for SegWit started, support has held steady at about 25% plus or minus small variance.

In other words, there are currently miners who are totaling ~75% of the network hasharate who would be against the UASF.

Also variance can let someone with around 35% or so of the network double spend a transaction with 6 confirmations, only this is horribly unprofitable because it will not work most of the time, and when it does not work, the miners would be giving up their block rewards.

I think the answer to piotr_n's question is:
"Someone who very much wants SegWit to activate"

[mezzomix]

You can't win it - UASF won't work, because the money is at the miner's side.
When you think about this, it's where the money come from.

If you are right here, this is the most important problem to solve. Which means with the next hard-fork, the mining algorithm has to be changed!

I would prefer a mining algorithm requiring the UTXO entries and the block entries for every round of the algorithm. This would definitely prevent pooled mining and cheap ASICs.

[belcher]

But what's most likely to happen is the miners will swallow their pride and set up their systems so they don't mine invalid blocks from the point of view of the new soft fork rules.

It's not about a pride, but about the money.

You can't win it - UASF won't work, because the money is at the miner's side.
When you think about this, it's where the money come from.
Its going to stick to the mother

If the miners just don't mine segwit-invalid blocks then they'll be making the same money as before.

This is easy to do. The way they'll lose money is if they get into some whiny ragequit that's more costly to them than anyone else.

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

[piotr_n]

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

First of all, there is no such thing as "economic majority" - you're just making this up.

Second, the money (bitcoin) is made by the miners - they have it in the first place.
What you are saying is that either bitcoin will become like you want, or you are not going to buy it anymore.
But just how is it different from you (or your "economic majority") not buying it in the first place?
Seriously, bitcoin doesn't care - it will always find buyers, just like it has before.

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

[mezzomix]

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

Yes. Maybe the better solution would be changing the mining algorithm to get rid of the hostile pool operators. 4000 Nodes should be enough to mine future blocks.

[gmaxwell]

I don't think that list of moderators has changed.

Rusty is not a moderator. I don't know who are moderators now.

Personally I don't go anywhere near that list. It's full of abusive people like Thomas Zander who just crappost relentlessly.  It's a waste of time.

You're insane, man.
[...]
There is absolutely no way the UASF can work.

Meh. I don't know why you say that: BIP16 was flag day activated.  I haven't really been following, but some people seem to think a controversial HF should work and a flag dayed softfork-- if it's a miner compatible softfork like segwit at least-- should be strictly simpler and less risky than that even in the worst case.

[piotr_n]

Sorry, I mean that UASF can't possibly work without the miners majority supporting it.

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.
The solution to enforce it was pretty lame, but such was the quality of bitcoin development back then.
The point is: if BIP16 didn't have the miners support, it would have failed.

There is absolutely no way the UASF can work, without the miners' majority supporting it.
If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners - that's totally different story.
Then you might just start enforcing it by whatever means, without a need to give it a fancy name.
Then the remaining miners will follow, because the sooner they'd do it, the better for then.

But now segwit has only 25% support and therefore there is absolutely no way the UASF can work.

[piotr_n]

This is how BIP16 was activated:

To gracefully upgrade and ensure no long-lasting block-chain split occurs, more than 50% of miners must support full validation of the new transaction type and must switch from the old validation rules to the new rules at the same time.
To judge whether or not more than 50% of hashing power supports this BIP, miners are asked to upgrade their software and put the string "/P2SH/" in the input of the coinbase transaction for blocks that they create.

On February 1, 2012, the block-chain will be examined to determine the number of blocks supporting pay-to-script-hash for the previous 7 days. If 550 or more contain "/P2SH/" in their coinbase, then all blocks with timestamps after 15 Feb 2012, 00:00:00 GMT shall have their pay-to-script-hash transactions fully validated. Approximately 1,000 blocks are created in a week; 550 should, therefore, be approximately 55% of the network supporting the new feature.

If a majority of hashing power does not support the new validation rules, then rollout will be postponed (or rejected if it becomes clear that a majority will never be achieved).

source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki

In the meantime UASF crazy idea makes no mention of "50% of miners".
At the contrary, it's actually saying that it can ignore what 75% of miners want.
Well, it can't - and that's why UASF cannot possibly work.

I mean, unless its goal is not to change the bitcoin blockchain protocol, but just to create yet another altcoin - for such a purpose it can definitely work.
But this altcoin would not stand a chance with the bitcoin miners as the risk of a possible 51% attack would make it useless.
It would need to use different POW function - and by this getting rid of the remaining 25% they had left.
And who would have bought it then? Except for some kids...