[bitcoin-dev] Some transcripts from Scaling Bitcoin 2016
Previously: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011862.html Here are some talks from Milan: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/fungibility-overview/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/joinmarket/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/tumblebit/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/mimblewimble/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/onion-routing-in-lightning/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/flare-routing-in-lightning/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/unlinkable-outsourced-channel-monitoring/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/lightning/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/segwit-lessons-learned/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/schnorr-signatures/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/bip151-peer-encryption/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/coin-selection/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/covenants/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/on-the-security-and-performance-of-proof-of-work-blockchains/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/collective-signing/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/fast-difficulty-adjustment/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/jute-braiding/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/client-side-validation/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/breaking-the-chain/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/day-1-group-summaries/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/day-2-group-summaries/ These are not always exact transcripts because I am typing while I am listening, thus there are mistakes including typos and listening errors, so please keep this discrepancy in mind between what's said and what's typed. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> > My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to >> > be a public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else. >> >> Indeed, we agree that BIPs should be licensed as permissive as >> possible. Still, I wonder why you chose otherwise with BIP 134. >> (Currently OPL and CC-BY-SA) > > OPL was the only allowed option apart from CC0. I think you are misunderstanding what is allowed and what is required... BIP1: "Each BIP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the public domain (see this BIP as an example) or licensed under the Open Publication License" So BIP1 *requires* PD or OPL but does not forbid other licenses. For example, you are free to multi license OPL (and additionally: BSD, MIT, CC0, ...) BIP2: "Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble." So BIP2 *requires* an acceptable license but does not forbid other choices. For example, you are free to choose: BSD (and additionally: PD, CC-BY-SA, WTFPL, BEER, ...) >> BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in >> legislations where this is possible > > It does, actually. Huh, I can't find it in the text I read. The text mentions "not acceptable", but I don't read that as "forbidden". > >> One >> of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright >> option. > > That's odd as PD was never the only copyright option. Right. Though, up to now the majority of the BIP authors chose PD as the only option. Marco ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 14:12:09 CEST Marco Falke wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to > > be a public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else. > > Indeed, we agree that BIPs should be licensed as permissive as > possible. Still, I wonder why you chose otherwise with BIP 134. > (Currently OPL and CC-BY-SA) OPL was the only allowed option apart from CC0. I dual licensed it so future acceptance of the CC-BY-SA one may mean someone can just remove the OPL from the BIP and no futher action or permission is needed from all the authors. > BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in > legislations where this is possible It does, actually. > One > of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright > option. That's odd as PD was never the only copyright option. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 11:00:35 AM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to be > a public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else. > > I like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses. > Do you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we > agree. BIPs often should include code. > Well, it has this sentence; > > > This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and > > BSD 2-clause license. > > Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested > we drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in > addition to the public domain one. The "real" license in this case is the BSD 2-clause. However, BIP 1 only allows OPL and public domain, so BIP 2 is available under OPL as well so that it is acceptable before/until it activates also. > Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license, > yet you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain > for BIPs... Did you read it? CC0 and public domain are two different things. > This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people > keep using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of > the community and make sure this has been heard and discussed. > Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the > BIP process. Yes, you're right. I'll post to Lightning-dev and libbitcoin's list about BIP 2. If you're aware of any other Bitcoin development discussion groups, could you please bring BIP 2 to their attention so it gets wider review? > 1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not > recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those > jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of > proof is on the man who wants to change things. As I understand it, presently France and Germany do not recognise public domain as a possible status. GPL is merely a copyright license, so it should be valid anywhere copyright laws exist. Luke ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[bitcoin-dev] BIP 2: BIP process, revised (review please)
BIP 2 is currently believed to be a final draft of what will replace BIP 1 in specifying how the entire BIP process works. This Process BIP will require rough consensus from the Bitcoin-dev mailing list to become Active (see BIP 2 for the procedure, which I intend to use for its own activation due to absence of a clear process defined in BIP 1). Therefore, if you have any objections to the new BIP process as specified in BIP 2, please voice your concerns ASAP. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki Thanks for your review, Luke ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to be a > public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else. Indeed, we agree that BIPs should be licensed as permissive as possible. Still, I wonder why you chose otherwise with BIP 134. (Currently OPL and CC-BY-SA) > I like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses. > Do you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we > agree. Licenses that only require attribution are generally compatible with each other. I don't think we should pick one and only promote/endorse this one. Let's just leave the decision to the BIP author. > Well, it has this sentence; > >> This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and >> BSD 2-clause license. > > Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested we > drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in addition > to the public domain one. I am pretty sure this is required to host the current text of BIP 2 in the repo, as currently BIP 1 still applies and still requires for all BIPs either OPL or PD, which is one of the reasons I think we should move forward with BIP 2 or amending BIP 1. > Marco: >> looks good and addressed the feedback which was >> accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move >> forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks. > > Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license, yet > you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain for > BIPs... Did you read it? > It says; > «Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus > it is inadvisable.» [1] BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in legislations where this is possible. None of the licenses mentioned in BIP 2 is exclusive, so you can choose as many options as you like. One of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright option. > > Also; > This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people keep > using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of the > community and make sure this has been heard and discussed. > Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the > BIP process. > > I strongly suggest people make very clear any and all changes that are > proposed and defend each of them with reasons why you want to change things. > > > 1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not > recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those > jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of > proof is on the man who wants to change things. > It looks fishy when lawyers disagree. See the CC wikipedia page; > "public domain: cc0 Freeing content globally without restrictions" Luke is the BIP champion of BIP 2, so please cc him if you have suggestions on how to improve the process of gathering community consensus. Marco ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 12:11:02 CEST Marco Falke wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is > > optional. > > Please note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same > time has BY as an option. > > Generally, I think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors > are scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose > MIT/BSD or CC-BY. My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to be a public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else. I like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses. Do you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we agree. Using code-specific licenses (including the GPL) for documentation and specifically a specification is a really poor fit and doens't make much sense. > Other than that I don't think that more restrictive > licenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong > place to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license). > BIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is > fine. > > I think that BIP 2 in its current form ( > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki > @6e47447b ) Well, it has this sentence; > This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and > BSD 2-clause license. Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested we drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in addition to the public domain one. Marco: > looks good and addressed the feedback which was > accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move > forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks. Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license, yet you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain for BIPs... Did you read it? It says; «Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus it is inadvisable.» [1] Also; This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people keep using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of the community and make sure this has been heard and discussed. Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the BIP process. I strongly suggest people make very clear any and all changes that are proposed and defend each of them with reasons why you want to change things. 1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of proof is on the man who wants to change things. It looks fishy when lawyers disagree. See the CC wikipedia page; "public domain: cc0 Freeing content globally without restrictions" -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is > optional. Please note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same time has BY as an option. Generally, I think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors are scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose MIT/BSD or CC-BY. Other than that I don't think that more restrictive licenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong place to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license). BIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is fine. I think that BIP 2 in its current form ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki @6e47447b ) looks good and addressed the feedback which was accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks. Marco ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users
On Friday, 14 October 2016 04:51:01 CEST Daniel Robinson via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo. > > Agreed. Also worth noting that it has a potential advantage over > unilateral patent disarmament, analogous to the advantage of copyleft > licenses over MIT/BSD: it provides an incentive (at least a theoretical > one) for other companies to adopt it too. This is a very important point and a huge step forward in my opinion. The downside of MIT/BSD licenses is that companies can take and not give back. It doesn't build a community and commonly-shared property. Copyleft allows people to take and embrace, but if they extend they have to give back. Which is fair, you build it on their stuff... -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
