Hi Billy, > I was actually not thinking one large central in-person meeting, but many smaller decentralized in-person meetings where no one has to travel far. The meetings can be used to foster communication that can then be summarized and/or brought online and discussed with the larger group. Would certainly make all those date/visa/etc issues a lot easier.
Minimizing travel hurdles for everyone sounds wise. About decentralized in-person meetings we already have a wide network of BitDev all around the world that can be opportunities to foster communication on covenant R&D advances. Staying interested in participating in in-person covenant-focus meetings though I won't volunteer to organize them, from my experience it's a real trade different from Bitcoin research engineering! > Fair enough. But I think part of the point here would be to use such a snapshot as an indicator that helps convince others that a particular idea has been discussed, thought through, and has actual well-reasoned support. Whatever you call it, it would be a useful set of data points. Yeah, collecting, building and maintaining a set of strong data points that would improve the community covenant information-gathering process. However, I think observing consensus is better left to everyone's personal judgement rather than proclaiming it. At best, we can monitor the lack of consensus. There is already an ongoing effort to document primitives : https://github.com/bitcoinops/bitcoinops.github.io/pull/806 and making progress on the use-cases collection soon. Le sam. 27 août 2022 à 22:01, Billy Tetrud <billy.tet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I would like to note it's real work for the organizers in terms of time > and energy: finding a common date making consensus, an acceptable host > country (i.e respecting the travel policy of the widest... > > I was actually not thinking one large central in-person meeting, but many > smaller decentralized in-person meetings where no one has to travel far. > The meetings can be used to foster communication that can then be > summarized and/or brought online and discussed with the larger group. Would > certainly make all those date/visa/etc issues a lot easier. > > > I would be even cautious about something restrained like "group > consensus" in Bitcoin FOSS. At best, it's just a snapshot of people's > understanding of the technical issues in state X at time T > > Fair enough. But I think part of the point here would be to use such a > snapshot as an indicator that helps convince others that a particular idea > has been discussed, thought through, and has actual well-reasoned support. > Whatever you call it, it would be a useful set of data points. > > > I believe the covenant problem space might be solved in an evolutionary > way, layer by layer akin to how LN moves forward. > > Definitely. > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:15 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.ri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Billy, >> >> Thanks for your interest in a covenant working group. >> >> > place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant's >> > comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS and resolve >> > misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, an in-person >> meetup >> > can be organized in various locations to facilitate that kind of cut >> > through. >> >> I really appreciate in-person cut-through to resolve misunderstandings >> and accelerate the information synchronization across the stakeholders of a >> problem space. However, I would like to note it's real work for the >> organizers in terms of time and energy: finding a common date making >> consensus, an acceptable host country (i.e respecting the travel policy of >> the widest, e.g organizing Scaling in Israel in 2019 was an issue for some >> passport holders), a standard meeting location, seeking event sponsors, >> communicating all those infos well ahead to ease everyone travels, ensuring >> coffees & foods suiting many different diets, collecting topics of >> discussions, etc. Further, even assuming travel support, it can still be a >> prohibitive cost for a lot of participants, e.g if you have to request >> months ahead to the host country authorities a dedicated visa for the >> opportunity. I did a bit of in-person meetings organizing in the past, I'm >> clearly not interested in doing it anymore, though it would be cool if >> someone would like to do it for covenants in the future. >> >> > I would imagine the phases the group could go through is: >> > 1. Define the phases (these phases). This list of 6 phases could be a >> > starting point, but its probably best to open the floor to whether this >> > feels like a reasonable approach and if more phases are needed or if >> some >> > aren't. >> > 2. Define and prioritize the motivations (ie the various features and >> > functionality we want out of covenants, like the ones you listed). By >> > prioritize, I mostly mean figure out which motivations are most >> motivating >> > to people and rate them by strength of motivation (rather than a ranked >> > list). >> > 3. Define and prioritize the relevant constraints. These are things to >> > avoid in any covenant implementation. Constraints that have been >> brought up >> > in the past are things like preventing the possibility of infinite >> covenant >> > recursion, full enumeration, preventing dynamic state, etc. By >> prioritize >> > here, it might be useful to categorize them into categories like "no >> > tolerance", "some tolerance", "no reservations". Eg it might turn out >> most >> > people don't have any tolerance for infinite recursion, but don't mind >> > non-full enumeration. >> > 4. Other criteria? These are other criteria we might want to evaluate >> > proposals according to. And some kind of way to prioritize them / >> evaluate >> > them against each other as trade offs. >> > 5. Evaluate the proposals based on motivations, constraints, and other >> > criteria. This phase shouldn't involve comparing them to each other. >> > 6. Produce a set of conclusions/opinions on which proposals are worth >> > pursuing further. This would be the phase where proposals are compared. >> >> Yes, I think overall a lot is making sense. Though it's good to keep >> things as loose and see how it evaluates with time and new information >> showing up. >> >> About 2., I think one more thing to define is the list of use-cases, I >> would abstract out features and functionality from use-cases. E.g, I think >> with the TLUV proposal, the taproot output editing feature enables both >> "dynamic-amount" vault and scaling payment pools. >> >> About 3., I think this is going to be the hard part. Collecting all the >> constraints and evaluating the risk tolerance of as-much-as-we-can >> community stakeholders in face of known and plausible risks. E.g, again >> with TLUV, I think it would make from now on the taproot internal pubkey >> and tree of alternative scripts a kind of "dynamic state". >> >> About 4. I've quickly come to mind as additional criterias economic >> simulations of any feature, privacy advantages, toolchain implementations >> complexity, evolvability and composability with future features. >> >> About 6. I agree I think it's good to withhold comparison further down in >> the pipe we can, even if there is I would say some criteria-learning >> heuristics by mirroring features against another. >> >> > Each phase would probably span over more than one meeting. I imagine >> each >> > phase basically consisting of discussing each individual nominated item >> (ie >> > motivations, constraints, other criteria, or proposals) sequentially. >> The >> > consensus reached at the end of each phase would be considered of >> course a >> > group consensus of those who participated, not a global consensus, not a >> > "bitcoin community consensus". After each phase, the results of that >> phase >> > would be published more widely to get broader community feedback. These >> > results would include what the major opinions are, what level of >> consensus >> > each major opinion has, what the reasons/justifications behind each >> opinion >> > are, and various detailed opinions from individuals. It would be >> especially >> > great to have detailed evaluations of each proposal published by various >> > people so anyone can go back and understand their thought process (as >> > opposed to a list of names attached to basically a thumbs up or thumbs >> > down). Think like a supreme court decision kind of thing. >> >> Yeah, again I don't see meetings as bounded in time rather happening >> regularly as we have with LN ones. I guess it's going to take at least a >> good year for working group participants to take habits and familiarity >> with the problem space and reach consensus on the process itself. Further, >> I would be even cautious about something restrained like "group consensus" >> in Bitcoin FOSS. At best, it's just a snapshot of people's understanding of >> the technical issues in state X at time T, and that can evaluate quickly in >> function of new findings or issues arising. I think it's more interesting >> to seek a lack of consensus in the sense of opposite opinions or blocking >> arguments. I wouldn't disqualify thumbs up or thumbs down per se, there are >> marks of interest in a specific proposal, though I lean to agree that I >> find more interesting too laid-out evaluations and thought processes. >> >> > The process doesn't need to be complete after phase 6. Any previous >> phase >> > could be revisited, but after a phase is revisited, the phases after it >> > should probably be also revisited in order - or at least until its >> decided >> > a previous phase needs to be revisited again. Each iteration would >> solidify >> > consensus more about each phase. I would imagine the group might loop >> > through phases 2, 3, and 4 a couple times (since constraints might >> conflict >> > with motivating features). It might be likely that in phase 5 while >> > evaluating proposals, people realize that there are additional criteria >> > that should be added and can propose going back to step 4 to do that. >> > Hopefully we would get to the point where the motivations and >> constraints >> > and relatively solid consensuses and iterations can loop through phases >> 5 >> > and 6 until the set of proposals the group thinks is worth pursuing is >> > narrowed down (ideally to 1 or 2). >> >> For sure, in the function of new feedback arising it's good to constantly >> reevaluate proposals. Hopefully, I think any looping should make proposals >> more formalized and accurate. We might also have the "easy" covenants >> moving faster than the "hard" ones across the phases. I believe the >> covenant problem space might be solved in an evolutionary way, layer by >> layer akin to how LN moves forward. >> >> Le mer. 3 août 2022 à 11:37, Billy Tetrud <billy.tet...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> @Antoine >>> I very much like your proposal of an open decentralized process for >>> investigating the problem and solution spaces. IRC sounds like a reasonable >>> place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant's >>> comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS and resolve >>> misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, an in-person meetup >>> can be organized in various locations to facilitate that kind of cut >>> through. >>> >>> I would imagine the phases the group could go through is: >>> 1. Define the phases (these phases). This list of 6 phases could be a >>> starting point, but its probably best to open the floor to whether this >>> feels like a reasonable approach and if more phases are needed or if some >>> aren't. >>> 2. Define and prioritize the motivations (ie the various features and >>> functionality we want out of covenants, like the ones you listed). By >>> prioritize, I mostly mean figure out which motivations are most motivating >>> to people and rate them by strength of motivation (rather than a ranked >>> list). >>> 3. Define and prioritize the relevant constraints. These are things to >>> avoid in any covenant implementation. Constraints that have been brought up >>> in the past are things like preventing the possibility of infinite covenant >>> recursion, full enumeration, preventing dynamic state, etc. By prioritize >>> here, it might be useful to categorize them into categories like "no >>> tolerance", "some tolerance", "no reservations". Eg it might turn out most >>> people don't have any tolerance for infinite recursion, but don't mind >>> non-full enumeration. >>> 4. Other criteria? These are other criteria we might want to evaluate >>> proposals according to. And some kind of way to prioritize them / evaluate >>> them against each other as trade offs. >>> 5. Evaluate the proposals based on motivations, constraints, and other >>> criteria. This phase shouldn't involve comparing them to each other. >>> 6. Produce a set of conclusions/opinions on which proposals are worth >>> pursuing further. This would be the phase where proposals are compared. >>> >>> Each phase would probably span over more than one meeting. I imagine >>> each phase basically consisting of discussing each individual nominated >>> item (ie motivations, constraints, other criteria, or proposals) >>> sequentially. The consensus reached at the end of each phase would be >>> considered of course a group consensus of those who participated, not a >>> global consensus, not a "bitcoin community consensus". After each phase, >>> the results of that phase would be published more widely to get broader >>> community feedback. These results would include what the major opinions >>> are, what level of consensus each major opinion has, what the >>> reasons/justifications behind each opinion are, and various detailed >>> opinions from individuals. It would be especially great to have detailed >>> evaluations of each proposal published by various people so anyone can go >>> back and understand their thought process (as opposed to a list of names >>> attached to basically a thumbs up or thumbs down). Think like a supreme >>> court decision kind of thing. >>> >>> The process doesn't need to be complete after phase 6. Any previous >>> phase could be revisited, but after a phase is revisited, the phases after >>> it should probably be also revisited in order - or at least until its >>> decided a previous phase needs to be revisited again. Each iteration would >>> solidify consensus more about each phase. I would imagine the group might >>> loop through phases 2, 3, and 4 a couple times (since constraints might >>> conflict with motivating features). It might be likely that in phase 5 >>> while evaluating proposals, people realize that there are additional >>> criteria that should be added and can propose going back to step 4 to do >>> that. Hopefully we would get to the point where the motivations and >>> constraints and relatively solid consensuses and iterations can loop >>> through phases 5 and 6 until the set of proposals the group thinks is worth >>> pursuing is narrowed down (ideally to 1 or 2). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:47 AM Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:21 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.ri...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What would be the canonical definition and examples of capabilities in >>>>> the Bitcoin context ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Payments into vaults which can only be accepted by that vault and are >>>> guaranteed to be subject to the vault's restrictions (the vault has a >>>> capability) >>>> >>>> Oracles whose validity can be verified on chain (so transactions can >>>> depend on what they say. The oracle has a capability) >>>> >>>> Colored coins whose validity can be verified on chain (the colored >>>> coins have a capability) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>> >>>
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
