Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core

From: Bryan Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:09:02 -0500

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:28 AM waxwing/ AdamISZ <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> My personal opinion is that the best solution is to create a very strong
> ruleset on disallowing any non-technical contribution on github, and
> applying that rule rigorously no matter whether the content *feels*
> acceptable or not, and no matter how well respected the contributor is and
> might rightfully be given some slack. This would be for PRs; for Issues, I
> don't know how much of a similar problem you have, but templates aren't bad
> I guess. Such extreme discipline is only needed in that repo, virtually no
> other repo needs it.
>

Interesting idea. Worth trying. I would not be opposed to seeing this
tried. However, my intuition is that manual, vigorous disciplined
moderation like that is difficult to execute especially across many people,
compared to systems that push that discipline into automation mechanisms,
such as "must apply to post" or "first-timers have their posts moderated"
or other variations.

I think the biggest problems arise when you insist that there is *no* place
> for what you see as "brigading", "sock puppetry" etc. I have seen several
> times in the past (most notably around the blocksize wars) where many highly
>

Nobody can stop such discussion forums from being created anywhere on the
Internet. There will always be a place so long as at least one person wants
to publicly discuss an idea or concept. I recall there were various "pro
block size wars" discussion channels during that time period.

> respected engineers dismissed all opposing opinions as sock puppetry. This
> is not realistic, nor is it healthy. If you stuff all contrary opinions
> (uneducated or not!) into a garbage bin that you label "politics" (imagine
> the phrase "go
>

I have some confusion here: is this a discussion about existing public
communication channels and allowing arbitrary content posting? is it about
what an individual does and what they choose to engage with or not engage
in? Is it a condemnation of the aggregate behavior of the volunteer
developers?

1) Existing communication channels: see my previous text on compelled
platforming of speech in my original email.

2) Whether individuals choose to engage or label it "politics" or "cool
random" or "trash bin" or any other label they choose: This is entirely up
to the individual level and cannot be regulated. Nor can they be forced to
participate or discuss things they don't want to discuss or aren't
interested in. However, sometimes people for example do engage in online
arguments, against their better judgment haha.

3) Aggregate group behavior: this one is likely more of an issue of
narratives and perceptions around group behavior in aggregate. For example,
a perception that "respected engineers dismissed all opposing opinions as
sockpuppetry" in the incident you are referencing when there was, to my
recollection, extensive prolonged good faith engagement to a radical
extent. Have we such a short memory? Of course, when such engagement does
not lead to a desired outcome, it's easy to spin a narrative of
non-cooperation or non-engagement ("you didn't cause the outcome that we
demanded! if you did not come to our conclusion then you did not do any
consideration!" -- see how easy it is?).

> and discuss it on bitcoin-politics" with the tacit assumption that no one
> serious is ever going to read that dumpster fire), it invites the exact
> conflict you're trying to avoid. I suggest "bitcoin policy" as a general
> title for such things,
>

I don't see my original goal as "avoid conflict". It was about creating an
online space exclusively for bitcoin developers that want to work together
on bitcoin development. I posit that even with such an exclusive space, and
even if it had higher adoption than the current private development
efforts, that there would still be various online fora with various people
of all kinds (angry, confused, informed, etc), or even cool-headed
non-confused people that developers simply don't have time or interest to
individually read-- or maybe they would; who knows! But it's separate from
having a place for bitcoin development.

> If [a bitcoin-policy fora] doesn't end up being a place that serious
> people talk seriously, then of course it will have failed in the intention.
>

That... might be okay? Who's fault is that if "serious people", such as
"serious developers", don't wish to participate in those fora? Does
fault-finding even matter there? And, if there is non-participation from
"serious developers" or other "serious people", the default assumption
should not be "therefore we need to clutter up public developer
communication channels" - which in some ways seems sort of paternalistic,
on the order of "developers can't decide for themselves how to hear from
users or what to individually work on"- thankfully nobody has explicitly
asserted this, although a few replies I received on X.com seem pretty close
to it......

- Bryan
https://x.com/kanzure

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CABaSBaw1u-9UptejUNwObYkk3POLF5LZ6UJqX14RzYyezvWFJQ%40mail.gmail.com.