Delivery-date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:30:31 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of apoelstra@wpsoftware.net designates 66.183.0.127 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.183.0.127;
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:14:05 +0000
From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core
Message-ID: <aE7xTUoUrPkNtDql@mail.wpsoftware.net>
References: <CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3phFFB_W3cHQLroUJcPDZKsjB8w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Df9zXCcITJ+E0z1d"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3phFFB_W3cHQLroUJcPDZKsjB8w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com


--Df9zXCcITJ+E0z1d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline

I have a few thoughts about this -- bearing in mind that I am a drive-by
contributor to Core, at best, and don't have much personal opinion other
than maybe "I wish it were easier to get stuff in".

1. I think that Antoine is correct that "it's easier and more natural"
   is a bigger motivation for "office work" than is the fear of brigade.
   So one thing is that any change to public processes shouldn't make it
   _harder_ for people to collaborate online, since that could push
   people more to in-person fora and we'd just have the worst of both
   worlds. Or at least, anyone making such a change should have a lot of
   confidence that the increased friendliness to earnest contributors
   would outweigh the extra friction.

2. On the other hand, fear of brigades _does_ clearly have a nonzero
   chilling effect. I certainly think about it when publicly communicating
   near the project, and I commonly bring it up when doing things in
   rust-bitcoin (i.e. "fortunately, we're not Core, so we can just do
   [some change that would constrain wallet workflows, or which could
   make ordinals particularly hard, or particularly easy, or whatever]"
   and not have to worry about fallout.)

   So at the very least, it's a factor that discourages some external
   developers from being bigger contributors to the project.

3. And of course, it's not just obvious brigades -- when one or two
   nontechnical people show up with strong political views about
   something which really is not a political change (or at least,
   doesn't have the political effect they believe it does, because of
   their own misunderstanding), it's still discouraging and sometimes
   stressful. And this happens all the time around mempool policy,
   even if PRs with 100+ comments that get locked are fairly rare.

4. However, after (ironically) discussing this email off-list with a
   bunch of people, I think that these problems stem from a fairly small
   cultural issue: that the Github repo appears to be a totally open
   forum where anyone is welcome to participate, even in code review
   threads, because technically anybody _can_ participate with no
   obvious sense that they're leaving X and entering somebody's
   workplace.

   And _this_, IMHO, might be solvable by something extremely simple. It
   might be sufficient to just move from Github to Gitlab or Codeberg or
   something where far fewer people have accounts. It would probably be
   sufficient to just find a platform where you have to register on the
   Core repo somehow then wait 24 hours before you can post, with the
   implication that if you're not there to contribute technically, you
   might lose your access. (This is true on Github but the only
   mechanism is that you can be banned from the org, something that
   feels heavy and scary for maintainers to use -- I really hate doing
   this to non-bots on rust-bitcoin and I don't even have to worry that
   they'll go on twitter to scream censorship and that I'm taking over
   Bitcoin or whatever -- and is also more-or-less invisible to users
   until it happens to them, so it's not an effective deterrent.)

   It would certainly be effective to put a strong technical barrier,
   e.g. you have to produce a custom mining share to join, or a strong
   social barrier, e.g. you need personal invitations from two people.

   But I think such tech barriers would be unnecessary and the social
   barriers wouldn't be worth the cries of censorship and centralization
   that they'd inevitably (and somewhat reasonably) cause.

5. I don't see much of benefit to making the repo *unreadable* to
   outsiders. It sorta prevents linking on Twitter but if we expect
   there to be mirrors, people can just link to the mirrors.


Again, it's not my project and I don't mean to advocate for anything in
particular. Just trying to organize thinking on the topic a bit.


-- 
Andrew Poelstra
Director, Blockstream Research
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
    -Justin Lewis-Webster

-- 
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 bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/aE7xTUoUrPkNtDql%40mail.wpsoftware.net.

--Df9zXCcITJ+E0z1d
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEkPnKPD7Je+ki35VexYjWPOQbl8EFAmhO8UgACgkQxYjWPOQb
l8GidQf7BqLwYymmHUCOKvYydIy7B6ymSds9mphESTW95V7sO06PDToYcVodj5nK
wJqv0upk1hJPeKQ5pbSZAkljz5ZOzfyR5Pi/XJbQdd4vnQbUfs14nDNk8C7cqn9P
A9JB/hcMEKpgRt9aefQwWoP7B+U3AXq+zfV099tP8mzcjE7aj/t4bFNmwi0VXSG6
kd4iJSQMsvz5Rmz1aO6LwnbwkroaWS+LfNmbS/RHQhwNyPigjiaMFP426t9Wxy1H
jfz1B1VOHrYMAUpjwVk8rjZWOYOAeNrAJtpoRhwZJfO0+wuRhQ0lPee24fc2Snby
TLn0U06dnIxNPtKtvGYtC9c84X7cNA==
=+Ygg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Df9zXCcITJ+E0z1d--