>I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to thinking "oh great, what's on about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed. I think we need to all recognize we are only humans -- thus susceptible to our emotions influencing our decisions. The notion of identity is an easy way to form judgements for/against an idea before thoroughly vetting it. I also think a by product of this would be to curb reddit/twitter trolls from talking about these protocol changes. It is a much less juicy story if you have to say "9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b created a BIP to propose a block size increase" compared to "Satoshi Nakamoto created a BIP to propose a block size increase". Note about the OP: "The hash “6f3…9cd0” is just my..." should really say "The hash '9458...271b' is just my.." Forgot to change the hash this morning. On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Johnson wrote: > I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely > data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to > thinking "oh great, what's on > about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed. > > And vice versa, it prevents people from being more partial to a bad or not > so great idea simply because it was posited by someone they hold in high > regard. > > Simple, yet effective. I would actually even go a step further and say > that all BIPs should be done this way as a matter of procedure, I can't > think of a downside. > > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:46 AM Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, there is a massive scaling debate >> going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while the >> other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on the >> topic but I won’t discuss them here. The point of the matter is we are >> seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. The critiques of these >> changes are slowly moving towards critiques based on who is submitting the >> BIP -- not what it actually contains. This is the worst thing that can >> happen in a meritocracy. >> >> *Avoiding politicization of technical changes in the future* >> >> I like what Tom Elvis Judor did when he submitted his MimbleWimble white >> paper to the technical community. He submitted it under a pseudonym, over >> TOR, onto a public IRC channel. No ego involved — only an extremely >> promising paper. Tom (and Satoshi) both understood that it is only a matter >> of time before who they are impedes technical progress of their system. >> >> I propose we move to a pseudonymous BIP system where it is required for >> the author submit the BIP under a pseudonym. For instance, the format could >> be something like this: >> >> BIP: 1337 >> >> Author: 9458b7f9f76131f18823d73770e069d55beb271b@protonmail.com >> >> BIP content down here >> >> The hash “6f3…9cd0” is just my github username, christewart, concatenated >> with some entropy, in this case these bytes: 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d >> 10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b >> >> and then hashed with RIPEMD160. I checked this morning that protonmail >> can support RIPEMD160 hashes as email addresses. Unfortunately it appears >> it cannot support SHA256 hashes. >> >> There is inconvenience added here. You need to make a new email address, >> you need to make a new github account to submit the BIP. I think it is >> worth the cost -- but am interested in what others think about this. I >> don't think people submitting patches to a BIP should be required to submit >> under a pseudonym -- only the primary author. This means only one person >> has to create the pseudonym. From a quick look at the BIPs list it looks >> like the most BIPs submitted by one person is ~10. This means they would >> have had to create 10 pseudonyms over 8 years -- I think this is >> reasonable. >> >> *What does this give us?* >> >> This gives us a way to avoid politicization of BIPs. This means a BIP can >> be proposed and examined based on it’s technical merits. This levels the >> playing field — making the BIP process even more meritocratic than it >> already is. >> >> If you want to claim credit for your BIP after it is accepted, you can >> reveal the preimage of the author hash to prove that you were the original >> author of the BIP. I would need to reveal my github username and “ >> 639c28f610edcaf265b47b0679986d10af3360072b56f9b0b085ffbb4d4f440b” >> >> *The Future* >> Politicization of bitcoin is only going to grow in the future. We need to >> make sure we maintain principled money instead devolving to a system where >> our money is based on a democratic vote — or the votes of a select few >> elites. We need to vet claims by “authority figures” whether it is Jihan >> Wu, Adam Back, Roger Ver, or Greg Maxwell. I assure you they are human — >> and prone to mistakes — just like the rest of us. This seems like a simple >> way to level the playing field. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Chris >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > -- > Andrew Johnson > >