5353 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 28 Feb \ on: AJ Towns censoring on Delving Bitcoin to cover Bitcoin Core backdoors ? bitcoin
Dude, you keep suggesting that your discussion partners are unqualified or malicious. You recently indicated that you do not want to collaborate. You've repeatedly announced that you are calling it quits. As it is, nobody benefits: I'm sure I'm not the only one that has stopped reading your wall-of-text comments because they're so hard to parse and so often not relevant.
There has been drama with you at the center at least three times in the last couple years. The common denominator doesn't seem to be the other people. If you don't want to be here, why don't you at least take a break until you feel better?
Murch - If you have a mental breakdown you’re free to apply your own advices and take vacations or ask a sabbatical to your own employer.
Personally I would understand, I’ve never seen you involved in time and operationally constraints technical actions in the Bitcoin space, e.g security-coordination disclosure neither seen any CVE you could have submitted yourself (my memory might be incorrect you’re free to correct me or points me to some stack overflow post ?).
As a former employee of some of said discussions partners myself, I could pointed out to dramas over more than three times over more than the last couple of years, where they are a common denominator.
reply
As I read the V3 PR, the issues that were brought up there were not introduced by the proposal but just not fully resolved by the PR alone. A few points seem also completely out of scope, more related to the LN spec than the proposed changes. Generally there was a lot of noise in this PR. I would recommend that anyone in this thread who is developing strong feelings actually go and peruse the PR. IMHO, the amount of low-signal noise produced by two of the reviewers of enough to drive away most other would be reviewers—I know because it did that to me, when I looked the PR over to see whether I could help with review. Ain't nobody got time to read all that.
Either way, those PRs are part of a bigger project that is still work in progress. V3 transactions are still non-standard, and more PRs are to be deployed before these rules even become active. The three "unprofessional reviewers" have spent a lot of time in the last months honing the related proposals with the PR author and are highly qualified to review the changes.
Given that the rules aren't even active...
Regarding cluster mempool: redesigning the mempool is a big endeavor. So, picking some brains to check whether the idea is even a significant improvement, feasible and worth the effort before getting everyone unnecessarily excited seems completely reasonable. That brainstorming involved a bunch of transaction graphs and feerate diagrams, so forum software was expedient to discussing the idea.
Within a few weeks, the same threads were set to being publicly readable, as the idea seemed worth exploring further. Since the posts are now all public, I'm not sure where a discussion about introducing a backdoor is supposed to be hiding.
I for one am pretty sure that it's not mandatory for Bitcoin Core contributors to publicly share their every crazy idea as it pops into their head. I'd even go so far that some might want to do a little more pondering before they do.
reply
On v3 transactions the three ‘unprofessional reviewers” are free to deploy v3-enabled bitcoin infrastructure to back up their reviews with real-world demonstrations as I did invite them to do so before the PR merge.
Time spent reviewing and working on the PR is not a convincing argument. Let’s all remember OP_EVAL.
Within a few weeks, the same threads were set to being publicly readable, as the idea seemed worth exploring further.
I’ll let you comment on the “fait accompli” as I’m pointing out in Pieter Hintjens book. Given the technical complexity of the mempool at the very contrary on my side all the discussions should be public. I did pointed out on the original cluster mempool issue (#27677) all the potential interactions with other parts of the ecosystem (miners, LN, L1 on-chain users) that I think the designers of cluster mempools are not completely mastering themselves.
I for one am pretty sure that it's not mandatory for Bitcoin Core contributors to publicly share their every crazy idea as it pops into their head. I'd even go so far that some might want to do a little more pondering before they do.
It’s not mandatory to share every crazy idea in public, yes. However with cluster mempools we’re very far from this “soundness” threshold as it’s already been presented in a restrained circle few core dev a while. Why more secrecy about this project ?
reply