Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4563AC0032 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2023 20:15:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1934960B10 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2023 20:15:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 1934960B10 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=NaxMWrBv X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-8xY1CJiVpn for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2023 20:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F39860A6B for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2023 20:15:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 6F39860A6B Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c54c8934abso86678171fa.0 for ; Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:15:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1699388149; x=1699992949; darn=lists.linuxfoundation.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Qb7dIw2OWddu+xaGpr8fhoMd/p3hTnuCck+AQtm3Y80=; b=NaxMWrBvkiLEUnrG3j6+7u8xigw++q/pfRagtQMfLShNlbuLVrY36Gwgn2CtFDucXj ueNEBR9GF//9kLbS5cK66QbbhrhDv0IcW1zK2SCghjsRm1jCU3Gy2Uyrc3yxrZXPCYsm lPQ/0TZpvVVgTttBi9NGeYN0DDm+5WLivo8/7IU215LoPr9ixesN6Cr7ntv7OS07zcOl TbxwSdopVZCQBe45qYKkhkdB0v1oZ0ZESDjUWKjUdrt0Ho5Ns6VYlAAgMuwZOY///1V3 hmGN9emWDdwmR6ZMkCMo3rWG6BjWNfmgva8s+HhHCsFQT+JyWIrcE/dsbV+0EYvU6D3M xXeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699388149; x=1699992949; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Qb7dIw2OWddu+xaGpr8fhoMd/p3hTnuCck+AQtm3Y80=; b=O2AghRHa45PkfJLDo2BHv+aycMkXnwFStfQUBJuGCU3Tvm02Ley6ce9GXac5CfTuo1 UkPUH+td1pdvpLapQc0AKxrWguCnPIV00V9VxDY6t7HlVGUIzvuB+j8N388I/2ipDwyM A29aAnUZtiLymL8TQVuvczs35/XpHbe/YhTCGeOoHN7lfIrowkZryzdnocnEb7LfSM9C oZr/rD8o6LIAbY2XhpzyJJBlJVilRKTp8n7M/WrqROvXeirO1EZU0B7bHnh9vmDexLaY AJZ8KnONIZqiJUO8JAwJRoJVx0/Y50cZ1T2tL1CJPOwDno64E3VEW6e1mizoVBRmW/GN 75Xg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyWPqW2GRfTI8qt/ma1zN2pFlhJ5dANO7o2p4l05Dy8SFYA/OMm +daz8SvqG9VpCAgRxkw0jTxcy8yhf7i6Qh6Aa1AWtGkORUM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHrHCa+R34oB1n+MUbetjl7TcZ6zO029Gym/WGKDGOzWM4Do57b+K/sTp0EUTTwrCk+5IEsAJt22lYWET80x24= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8907:0:b0:2c5:3492:5d96 with SMTP id d7-20020a2e8907000000b002c534925d96mr53753lji.12.1699388148685; Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:15:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2099470b-cca4-4fbe-99c3-ee2d2ed20157@achow101.com> In-Reply-To: <2099470b-cca4-4fbe-99c3-ee2d2ed20157@achow101.com> From: Ademan Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 14:15:37 -0600 Message-ID: To: Andrew Chow , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f02028060995a236" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Nov 2023 20:16:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Future of the bitcoin-dev mailing list X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2023 20:15:55 -0000 --000000000000f02028060995a236 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andrew, Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't know that you'll find my responses satisfactory (particularly around moderation), but there are at least solutions to the objections. Except of course the timeline, which I got wrong ;-) and means this would be half-baked at best by the time it's needed. On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:06=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > I don't think nostr would be a suitable replacement for the mailing > list, although this opinion is biased by the fact that I do not use > nostr and find it to be uninteresting. > I felt that way for a long time. I still have a number of reservations about it technically, but I'm increasingly impressed, though not for reasons relevant to the discussion. > From my limited understanding of how nostr works, it's not clear to me > how a distributed system that uses message broadcast would work in the > same way as a mailing list. How would people "subscribe"? This is already accomplished by existing apps in various ways. There are multiple options, from using labels, or topic tags ( https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/tree/master#standardized-tags ) (my preference) or the moderated community approach (see below on moderation) > How would > archives be searched or otherwise be available to people who are not on > nostr? Dumb web portals with a familiar interface, existing nostr apps are available as web clients in the interim. > How do you distinguish and filter between legitimate dev posts > intended for discussion and random crap and shitposting as shows up on > social media? > I lean strongly towards the topic tag or label approach to constructing the list, which means anyone can post "to the list". Moderation would be applied client side like all nostr clients already do. This is where PoW ( https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/13.md ) , and/or web-of-trust and labeling ( https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/32.md ) come in. Moderation comes "for free" in the moderated communities model ( https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/72.md ) Note that this approach creates exactly the same moderation burden as the list team already shoulders, and is overall less desirable imho, but it provides the same level of control the current list does. > I also don't think that long form text on nostr (or any similar > platform) can sufficiently replace email. None of these things seem to > contain a way to have a separate subject line as email does. "Subject tag" ( https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/14.md ) > Subjects > are immensely important for me as it provides a quick and easy way to > filter out things I don't care about reading. I don't want to have read > something in before I can decide that I don't care about reading it. > > In general, I strongly prefer email, or a platform that has email as a > first class user interface, over platforms such as nostr, matrix, or web > forums. Email is universal - everyone has one and everyone knows how it > works. It dramatically lowers the barrier of entry. I think you'd be surprised just how low the barrier to entry in nostr is. You can navigate to the website of any number of nostr apps and click "generate key", but your point about the universality of email is well taken. I think an email bridge would be an essential part of this system. An email bridge would only be less than first-class because email is not as rich as nostr* , from the email-user's perspective it could be no worse than using an existing list server. FWIW I also strongly prefer email over any web forum. * Unless you want to go wild with non-standard headers > Having to make an > account somewhere or download some specific client in order to > participate will simply result in only the most dedicated participating. > I actually think the barrier to entry is exceedingly low, which is part of why we have concern about the spam problem. > Development in open source must be an open process and the barriers to > entry should be low. > > Lastly, IIRC the plan is to shut down the list by the end of this year. > Any solution that requires custom software and bridges to be created are > not going to be viable in this time frame. > I have to admit I misread the OP as shutdown at the end of 2024, not 2023, but you're right, barely 2 months is a very tight schedule. Truly addressing the needs of the list in that time frame is unlikely to be possible. FWIW a workable "close enough" is basically possible today, but that is probably unsatisfying. Certainly if I take the lead, 2024-01-01 is an impossible timeline (especially given my other obligations), but if there is even moderate interest (part of why I bothered to share my ramblings), I could start working on an MVP of the bridge, and a web client for evaluation down the road. Cheers, Dan > > Andrew > > On 11/07/2023 12:03 PM, Ademan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hi Bryan, > > > > I don't really want my first (and last?) devlist message to be a fairly > > off-the-cuff post on this topic, but here we go anyway. > > > > At the risk of sounding like a nostr evangelist (I promise I'm not), I > > want to suggest nostr as a potential replacement to the mailing list. A > > decent chunk of software would need to be written, but none of the > > alternatives seem particularly attractive to me. I particularly dislike > > the idea of locking into a single siloed forum service like the > > bitcointalk forums. I realize I may be in the minority of course. > > > > > > Nostr enables the ML team to outsource all of its biggest burdens, if i= t > > chooses: > > > > - mail server blocking is N/A to nostr > > > > - Hosting costs are completely outsourced unless the ML team chooses to > > host a relay. > > > > - Archives and web portal access can be similarly outsourced because an= y > > nostr archive is self-authenticating. > > > > - The ML team can also choose to completely outsource moderation, as > > nostr is (more or less) permissionless by nature. > > I understand if there is a "blessed" communication system, the ML > > team would probably prefer to keep it high quality. To that end there > > are proposals for proof-of-work, and web of trust based blocklists for > > nostr which are optional for end users. There are other options such as > > the "moderated communities" proposal which would provide tighter contro= l. > > > > > > On the user side, the optional moderation is very attractive, allowing > > controversial threads to exist and continue, without requiring everyone > > to see them. > > > > > > The following do not currently exist (to my knowledge) and would need t= o > > be implemented to meet the ML's requirements: > > > > - an email gateway to satisfy the bulk of existing ML subscribers > > This reintroduces issues with mail server blocking of course. > > - a long-form oriented nostr client (current plain text clients could b= e > > used in the meantime) > > > > That admittedly is quite a lot of work, but the second item can be > > deferred, and the first is not particularly technically challenging, th= e > > complications are all on the administration side. > > > > I expect some reflexive NACKs based on the immaturity of the ecosystem > > but if we have months to prepare, I believe the core requirements can b= e > > solidly satisfied in time, the rest can be developed over time, and I > > believe the advantages are worth careful consideration. > > > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:38=E2=80=AFAM Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev > > > > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > We would like to request community feedback and proposals on the > > future of the mailing list. > > > > Our current mailing list host, Linux Foundation, has indicated for > > years that they have wanted to stop hosting mailing lists, which > > would mean the bitcoin-dev mailing list would need to move somewher= e > > else. We temporarily avoided that, but recently LF has informed a > > moderator that they will cease hosting any mailing lists later this > > year. > > > > In this email, we will go over some of the history, options, and > > invite discussion ahead of the cutoff. We have some ideas but want > > to solicit feedback and proposals. > > > > Background > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > The bitcoin-dev mailing list was originally hosted on > > Sourceforge.net. The bitcoin development mailing list has been a > > source of proposals, analysis, and developer discussion for many > > years in the bitcoin community, with many thousands of participants= . > > Later, the mailing list was migrated to the Linux Foundation, and > > after that OSUOSL began to help. > > > > Linux Foundation first asked us to move the mailing list in 2017. > > They internally attempted to migrate all LF mailing lists from > > mailman2 to mailman3, but ultimately gave up. There were reports of > > scalability issues with mailman3 for large email communities. Ours > > definitely qualifies as.. large. > > > > 2019 migration plan: LF was to turn off mailman and all lists would > > migrate to the paid service provider groups.io . > > Back then we were given accounts to try the groups.io > > interface and administration features. Apparentl= y > > we were not the only dev community who resisted change. To our > > surprise LF gave us several years of reprieve by instead handing th= e > > subdomain and server-side data to the non-profit OSUOSL lab who > > instead operated mailman2 for the past ~4 years. > > > > OSUOSL has for decades been well known for providing server > > infrastructure for Linux and Open Source development so they were a > > good fit. This however became an added maintenance burden for the > > small non-profit with limited resources. Several members of the > > Bitcoin dev community contributed funding to the lab in support of > > their Open Source development infrastructure goals. But throwing > > money at the problem isn=E2=80=99t going to fix the ongoing mainten= ance > > burden created by antiquated limitations of mailman2. > > > > Permalinks > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > Linux Foundation has either offered or agreed to maintain archive > > permalinks so that content of historic importance is not lost. > > Fortunately for us while lists.linuxfoundation.org > > mailman will go down, they have > > agreed the read-only pipermail archives will remain online. So all > > old URLs will continue to remain valid. However, the moderators > > strongly advise that the community supplements with public-inbox > > instances to have canonical archive urls that are separate from any > > particular email software host. > > > > Public-Inbox > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > https://public-inbox.org/README.html > > > > > > =E2=80=9CPublic Inbox=E2=80=9D decentralized archiving - no matter = what mailing list > > server solution is used, anyone can use git to maintain their own > > mailing list archive and make it available to read on the web. > > > > Public Inbox is a tool that you can run yourself. You can transform > > your mbox file and it makes it browsable and viewable online. It > > commits every post to a git repository. It's kind of like a > > decentralized mail archiving tool. Anyone can publish the mail > > archive to any web server they wish. > > > > We should try to have one or more canonical archives that are serve= d > > using public-inbox. But it doesn't matter if these are lost because > > anyone else can archive the mailing list in the same way and > > re-publish the archives. > > > > These git commits can also be stamped using opentimestamps, > > inserting their hashes into the bitcoin blockchain. > > > > LKML mailing list readers often use public-inbox's web interface, > > and they use the reply-to headers to populate their mail client and > > reply to threads of interest. This allows their reply to be properl= y > > threaded even if they were not a previous subscriber to that mailin= g > > list to receive the headers. > > > > public-inbox makes it so that it doesn't really matter where the > > list is hosted, as pertaining to reading the mailing list. There is > > still a disruption if the mailing list goes away, but the archives > > live on and then people can post elsewhere. The archive gets > > disconnected from the mailing list host in terms of posting. We > > could have a few canonical URLs for the hosts, separate from the > > mailing list server. > > > > mailman problems > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > Over the years we have identified a number of problems with mailman= 2 > > especially as it pertains to content moderation. There are presentl= y > > a handful of different moderators, but mailman2 only has a single > > password for logging into the email management interface. There are > > no moderator audit logs to see which user (there is no concept of > > different users) acted on an email. There is no way to mark an emai= l > > as being investigated by one or more of the moderators. Sometimes, > > while investigating the veracity of an email, another moderator > > would come in and approve a suspect email by accident. > > > > Anti spam has been an issue for the moderators. It's relentless. > > Without access to the underlying server, it has been difficult to > > fight spam. There is some support for filters in mailman2 but it's > > not great. > > > > 100% active moderation and approval of every email is unsustainable > > for volunteer moderators. A system that requires moderation is a > > heavy burden on the moderators and it slows down overall > > communication and productivity. There's lots of problems with this. > > Also, moderators can be blamed when they are merely slow while they > > are not actually censoring. > > > > Rejection emails can optionally be sent to > > bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org > > but this is an > > option that a moderator has to remember to type in each time. > > > > Not to mention numerous bugs and vulnerabilities that have > > accumulated over the years for relatively unmaintained software. > > (Not disclosed here) > > > > Requirements and considerations > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > Looking towards the future, there are a number of properties that > > seem to be important for the bitcoin-dev mailing list community. > > First, it is important that backups of the entire archive should be > > easy for the public to copy or verify so that the system can be > > brought up elsewhere if necessary. > > > > Second, there seems to be demand for both an email threading > > interface (using mailing list software) as well as web-accessible > > interfaces (such as forum software). There seems to be very few > > options that cater to both email and web. Often, in forum software, > > email support is limited to email notifications and there is limite= d > > if any support for email user participation. > > > > Third, there should be better support for moderator tools and > > management of the mailing list. See above for complaints about > > problems with the mailman2 system. > > > > Burdens of running your own mailing list and email server > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > If you have never operated your own MTA you have no idea how > > difficult it is to keep secure and functional in the face of > > numerous challenges to deliverability. Anti-spam filtering is > > essential to prevent forwarding spam. The moment you forward even a > > single spam message you run the risk of the server IP address being > > added to blacklists. > > > > The problem of spam filtering is so bad that most IP addresses are > > presumed guilty even if they have no prior spam history, such as if > > their network or subnetwork had spam issues in the past. > > > > Even if you put unlimited time into managing your own email server, > > other people may not accept your email. Or you make one mistake, an= d > > then you get into permanent blacklists and it's hard to remove. The > > spam problem is so bad that most IPs are automatically on a > > guilty-until-proven-innocent blacklist. > > > > Often there is nothing you can do to get server IP addresses remove= d > > from spam blacklists or from "bad reputation" lists. > > > > Ironically, hashcash-style proof-of-work stamps to prevent spam are > > an appealing solution but not widely used in this community. Or > > anywhere. > > > > Infinite rejection or forwarding loops happen. They often need to b= e > > detected through vigilance and require manual sysadmin intervention > > to solve. > > > > Bitcoin's dev lists being hosted alongside other Open Source > > projects was previously protective. If that mailing list server > > became blacklisted there were a lot of other people who would notic= e > > and complain. If we run a Bitcoin-specific mail server we are on ou= r > > own. 100% of the administrative burden falls upon our own people. > > There is also nothing we can do if some unknown admin decides they > > don't like us. > > > > Options > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > Web forums are an interesting option, but often don't have good > > email user integration. At most you can usually hope for email > > notifications and an ability to reply by email. It changes the mode= l > > of the community from push (email) to pull (logging into a forum to > > read). RSS feeds can help a little bit. > > > > Many other projects have moved from mailing lists to forums (eg > > https://discuss.python.org/ =E2=80=93= see > > https://lwn.net/Articles/901744/ > > ; or https://ethresear.ch/ ), which seem > > easier to maintain and moderate, and can have lots of advanced > > features beyond plaintext, maybe-threading and maybe-HTML-markup. > > > > Who would host the forum? Would there be agreement around which > > forum software to use or which forum host? What about > > bitcointalk.org or delvingbitcoin.org > > ? There are many options available. Mayb= e > > what we actually want isn=E2=80=99t so much a discussion forum, as = an 'arxiv > > of our own' where anons can post BIP drafts and the like? > > > > Given the problems with mailman2, and the decline of email > > communities in general, it seems that moving to mailman3 would not > > be a viable long-term option. This leaves us with Google Groups or > > groups.io as two remaining options. > > > > groups.io is an interesting option: they are a > > paid service that implements email communities along with online we= b > > forum support. However, their public changelog indicates it has bee= n > > a few years since their last public change. They might be a smaller > > company and it is unclear how long they will be around or if this > > would be the right fit for hosting sometimes contentious bitcoin > > development discussions... > > > > Google Groups is another interesting option, and comes with > > different tradeoffs. It's the lowest effort to maintain option, and > > has both an email interface and web forum interface. Users can > > choose which mode they want to interact with. > > > > For the Google Groups web interface, you can use it with a non-gmai= l > > account, but you must create a Google Account which is free to do. > > it does not require any personal information to do so. This also > > allows you to add 2FA. Non-gmail non-google users are able to > > subscribe and post email from their non-gmail non-google email > > accounts. Tor seems to work for the web interface. > > > > Will Google shut it down, will they cut us off, will they shut down > > non-google users? The same problem exists with other third-party > hosts. > > > > The moderation capabilities for Google Groups and groups.io > > seem to be comparable. It seems more likely that > > Google Groups will be able to handle email delivery issues far > > better than a small resource-constrained operation like groups.io > > . ((During feedback for this draft, luke-jr > > indicates that Google Workspaces has been known to use blacklisted > > IPs for business email!)) > > > > On the other hand, groups.io is a paid service > > and you get what you pay for... hopefully? > > > > Finally, another option is to do literally nothing. It's less work > > overall. Users can switch to forums or other websites, or private > > one-on-one communication. It would remove a point of > > semi-centralization from the bitcoin ecosystem. It would hasten > > ossification, but on the other hand it would hasten ossification an= d > > this could be a negative too. Moderators would be less of a target. > > > > Unfortunately, by doing nothing, there would be no more widely used > > group email communication system between bitcoin developers. > > Developers become less coordinated, mayhem and chaos as people go t= o > > different communication platforms, a divided community is more > > vulnerable, etc. BIP1 and BIP2 would need to be revised for other > > venues. > > > > The main categories of what to move to are: web forums, mailing > > lists, and hybrids of those two options. Most everything is either > > self-hosted or you pay someone else to host it. It's kind of the > > same problem though. It largely depends on how good is the software > > and unfortunately running your own MTA that forwards mail is not a > > good option. > > > > Going forward > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > We'd like to invite feedback and proposals from the community, and > > see what options are available. One potential option is a migration > > to Google Groups, but we're open to ideas at this point. We > > apologize for any inconvenience this disruption has caused. > > > > > > Bitcoin-dev mailing list moderation team > > > > Bryan Bishop > > Ruben Somsen > > Warren Togami > > various others. > > > > -- > > - Bryan > > https://twitter.com/kanzure > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --000000000000f02028060995a236 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Andrew,
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't know that you'll fi= nd my responses satisfactory (particularly around moderation), but there ar= e at least solutions to the objections. Except of course the timeline, whic= h I got wrong ;-) and means this would be half-baked at best by the time it= 's needed.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:06=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Chow = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Dan,

I don't think nostr would be a suitable replacement for the mailing list, although this opinion is biased by the fact that I do not use
nostr and find it to be uninteresting.

= I felt that way for a long time. I still have a number of reservations abou= t it technically, but I'm increasingly impressed, though not for reason= s relevant to the discussion.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0From my limited understanding of how nostr works, it's not clear = to me
how a distributed system that uses message broadcast would work in the
same way as a mailing list. How would people "subscribe"?

This is already accomplished by existing apps in v= arious ways. There are multiple options, from using labels, or topic tags (= https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/tree/master#standardized-tags= ) (my preference) or the moderated community approach (see below on m= oderation)
=C2=A0
How would
archives be searched or otherwise be available to people who are not on nostr?

Dumb web portals with a familiar int= erface, existing nostr apps are available as web clients in the interim.
=C2=A0
H= ow do you distinguish and filter between legitimate dev posts
intended for discussion and random crap and shitposting as shows up on
social media?

I lean s= trongly towards the topic tag or label approach to constructing the list, w= hich means anyone can post "to the list". Moderation would be app= lied client side like all nostr clients already do. This is where PoW ( https://g= ithub.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/13.md ) , and/or web-of-trust= and labeling ( https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/32.md ) co= me in.

Moderation comes "for free" in the moderated commun= ities model ( https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/72.md ) Note= that this approach creates exactly the same moderation burden as the list = team already shoulders, and is overall less desirable imho, but it provides= the same level of control the current list does.
=C2=A0
I also don't think that long form text on nostr (or any similar
platform) can sufficiently replace email. None of these things seem to
contain a way to have a separate subject line as email does.

=C2=A0
Subjects
are immensely important for me as it provides a quick and easy way to
filter out things I don't care about reading. I don't want to have = read
something in before I can decide that I don't care about reading it.
In general, I strongly prefer email, or a platform that has email as a
first class user interface, over platforms such as nostr, matrix, or web forums. Email is universal - everyone has one and everyone knows how it works. It dramatically lowers the barrier of entry.

I think you'd be surprised just how low the barrier to entry i= n nostr is. You can navigate to the website of any number of nostr apps and= click "generate key", but your point about the universality of e= mail is well taken. I think an email bridge would be an essential part of t= his system. An email bridge would only be less than first-class because ema= il is not as rich as nostr* , from the email-user's perspective it coul= d be no worse than using an existing list server. FWIW I also strongly pref= er email over any web forum.

* Unless you want to go wild= with non-standard headers
=C2=A0
Having to make an
account somewhere or download some specific client in order to
participate will simply result in only the most dedicated participating.

I actually think the barrier to entry is = exceedingly low, which is part of why we have concern about the spam proble= m.
=C2=A0
Development in open source must be an open process and the barriers to
entry should be low.

Lastly, IIRC the plan is to shut down the list by the end of this year. Any solution that requires custom software and bridges to be created are not going to be viable in this time frame.

<= div>I have to admit I misread the OP as shutdown at the end of 2024, not 20= 23, but you're right, barely 2 months is a very tight schedule. Truly a= ddressing the needs of the list in that time frame is unlikely to be possib= le. FWIW a workable "close enough" is basically possible today, b= ut that is probably unsatisfying.

Certainly if I take the= lead, 2024-01-01 is an impossible timeline (especially given my other obli= gations), but if there is even moderate interest (part of why I bothered to= share my ramblings), I could start working on an MVP of the bridge, and a = web client for evaluation down the road.

Cheers,
Dan
=C2=A0

Andrew

On 11/07/2023 12:03 PM, Ademan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> I don't really want my first (and last?) devlist message to be a f= airly
> off-the-cuff post on this topic, but here we go anyway.
>
> At the risk of sounding like a nostr evangelist (I promise I'm not= ), I
> want to suggest nostr as a potential replacement to the mailing list. = A
> decent chunk of software would need to be written, but none of the > alternatives seem particularly attractive to me. I particularly dislik= e
> the idea of locking into a single siloed forum service like the
> bitcointalk forums. I realize I may be in the minority of course.
>
>
> Nostr enables the ML team to outsource all of its biggest burdens, if = it
> chooses:
>
> - mail server blocking is N/A to nostr
>
> - Hosting costs are completely outsourced unless the ML team chooses t= o
> host a relay.
>
> - Archives and web portal access can be similarly outsourced because a= ny
> nostr archive is self-authenticating.
>
> - The ML team can also choose to completely outsource moderation, as <= br> > nostr is (more or less) permissionless by nature.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I understand if there is a "blessed" communicat= ion system, the ML
> team would probably prefer to keep it high quality. To that end there =
> are proposals for proof-of-work, and web of trust based blocklists for=
> nostr which are optional for end users. There are other options such a= s
> the "moderated communities" proposal which would provide tig= hter control.
>
>
> On the user side, the optional moderation is very attractive, allowing=
> controversial threads to exist and continue, without requiring everyon= e
> to see them.
>
>
> The following do not currently exist (to my knowledge) and would need = to
> be implemented to meet the ML's requirements:
>
> - an email gateway to satisfy the bulk of existing ML subscribers
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 This reintroduces issues with mail server blocking of cou= rse.
> - a long-form oriented nostr client (current plain text clients could = be
> used in the meantime)
>
> That admittedly is quite a lot of work, but the second item can be > deferred, and the first is not particularly technically challenging, t= he
> complications are all on the administration side.
>
> I expect some reflexive NACKs based on the immaturity of the ecosystem=
> but if we have months to prepare, I believe the core requirements can = be
> solidly satisfied in time, the rest can be developed over time, and I =
> believe the advantages are worth careful consideration.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:38=E2=80=AFAM Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hello,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0We would like to request community=C2=A0feedback an= d proposals on the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0future of the mailing list.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Our current mailing list host, Linux Foundation, ha= s indicated for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0years that they have wanted to stop hosting mailing= lists, which
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0would mean the bitcoin-dev mailing list would need = to move somewhere
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0else. We temporarily avoided that, but recently LF = has informed a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0moderator that they will cease hosting any mailing = lists later this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0year.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0In this email, we will go over some of the history,= options, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0invite discussion ahead of the cutoff. We have some= ideas but want
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to solicit feedback and proposals.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Background
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The bitcoin-dev mailing list was originally hosted = on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Sourceforge.net. The bitcoin development mailing li= st has been a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0source of proposals, analysis, and developer discus= sion for many
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0years in the bitcoin community, with many thousands= of participants.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Later, the mailing list was migrated to the Linux F= oundation, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0after that OSUOSL began to help.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Linux Foundation first asked us to move the mailing= list in 2017.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0They internally attempted to migrate all LF mailing= lists from
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mailman2 to mailman3, but ultimately gave up. There= were reports of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0scalability issues with mailman3 for large email co= mmunities. Ours
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0definitely qualifies as.. large.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A02019 migration plan: LF was to turn off mailman and= all lists would
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0migrate to the paid service provider groups.io <http://groups.= io>.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Back then we were given accounts to try the groups.io >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<http://groups.io> interface and administration fe= atures. Apparently
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0we were not the only dev community who resisted cha= nge. To our
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0surprise LF gave us several years of reprieve by in= stead handing the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0subdomain and server-side data to the non-profit OS= UOSL lab who
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0instead operated mailman2 for the past ~4 years. >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0OSUOSL has for decades been well known for providin= g server
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0infrastructure for Linux and Open Source developmen= t so they were a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0good fit. This however became an added maintenance = burden for the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0small non-profit with limited resources. Several me= mbers of the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bitcoin dev community contributed funding to the la= b in support of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0their Open Source development infrastructure goals.= But throwing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0money at the problem isn=E2=80=99t going to fix the= ongoing maintenance
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0burden created by antiquated limitations of mailman= 2.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Permalinks
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Linux Foundation has either offered or agreed to ma= intain archive
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0permalinks so that content of historic importance i= s not lost.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Fortunately for us while lists.linuxfoundati= on.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org>= mailman will go down, they have
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0agreed the read-only pipermail archives will remain= online. So all
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0old URLs will continue to remain valid. However, th= e moderators
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0strongly advise that the community supplements with= public-inbox
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0instances to have canonical archive urls that are s= eparate from any
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0particular email software host.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Public-Inbox
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://public-inbox.org/README.html=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://public-inbox.org/README.html= >
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=9CPublic Inbox=E2=80=9D decentralized archiv= ing - no matter what mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0server solution is used, anyone can use git to main= tain their own
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mailing list archive and make it available to read = on the web.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Public Inbox is a tool that you can run yourself. Y= ou can transform
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0your mbox file and it makes it browsable and viewab= le online. It
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0commits every post to a git repository. It's ki= nd of like a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0decentralized mail archiving tool. Anyone can publi= sh the mail
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0archive to any web server they wish.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0We should try to have one or more canonical archive= s that are served
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0using public-inbox. But it doesn't matter if th= ese are lost because
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0anyone else can archive the mailing list in the sam= e way and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0re-publish the archives.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0These git commits can also be stamped using opentim= estamps,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0inserting their hashes into the bitcoin blockchain.=
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0LKML mailing list readers often use public-inbox= 9;s web interface,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and they use the reply-to headers to populate their= mail client and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0reply to threads of interest. This allows their rep= ly to be properly
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0threaded even if they were not a previous subscribe= r to that mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0list to receive the headers.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0public-inbox makes it so that it doesn't really= matter where the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0list is hosted, as pertaining to reading the mailin= g list. There is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0still a disruption if the mailing list goes away, b= ut the archives
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0live on and then people can post elsewhere. The arc= hive gets
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0disconnected from the mailing list host in terms of= posting. We
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0could have a few canonical URLs for the hosts, sepa= rate from the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mailing list server.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mailman problems
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Over the years we have identified a number of probl= ems with mailman2
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0especially as it pertains to content moderation. Th= ere are presently
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a handful of different moderators, but mailman2 onl= y has a single
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0password for logging into the email management inte= rface. There are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0no moderator audit logs to see which user (there is= no concept of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0different users) acted on an email. There is no way= to mark an email
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0as being investigated by one or more of the moderat= ors. Sometimes,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0while investigating the veracity of an email, anoth= er moderator
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0would come in and approve a suspect email by accide= nt.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Anti spam has been an issue for the moderators. It&= #39;s relentless.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Without access to the underlying server, it has bee= n difficult to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fight spam. There is some support for filters in ma= ilman2 but it's
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not great.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0100% active moderation and approval of every email = is unsustainable
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0for volunteer moderators. A system that requires mo= deration is a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0heavy burden on the moderators and it slows down ov= erall
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communication and productivity. There's lots of= problems with this.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Also, moderators can be blamed when they are merely= slow while they
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0are not actually censoring.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rejection emails can optionally be sent to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.or= g> but this is an
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0option that a moderator has to remember to type in = each time.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Not to mention numerous bugs and vulnerabilities th= at have
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0accumulated over the years for relatively unmaintai= ned software.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(Not disclosed here)
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Requirements and considerations
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Looking towards the future, there are a number of p= roperties that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0seem to be important for the bitcoin-dev mailing li= st community.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0First, it is important that backups of the entire a= rchive should be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0easy for the public to copy or verify so that the s= ystem can be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0brought up elsewhere if necessary.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Second, there seems to be demand for both an email = threading
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0interface (using mailing list software) as well as = web-accessible
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0interfaces (such as forum software). There seems to= be very few
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0options that cater to both email and web. Often, in= forum software,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0email support is limited to email notifications and= there is limited
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if any support for email user participation.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Third, there should be better support for moderator= tools and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0management of the mailing list. See above for compl= aints about
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0problems with the mailman2 system.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Burdens of running your own mailing list and email = server
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0If you have never operated your own MTA you have no= idea how
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0difficult it is to keep secure and functional in th= e face of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0numerous challenges to deliverability. Anti-spam fi= ltering is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0essential to prevent forwarding spam. The moment yo= u forward even a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0single spam message you run the risk of the server = IP address being
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0added to blacklists.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The problem of spam filtering is so bad that most I= P addresses are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presumed guilty even if they have no prior spam his= tory, such as if
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0their network or subnetwork had spam issues in the = past.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Even if you put unlimited time into managing your o= wn email server,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0other people may not accept your email. Or you make= one mistake, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0then you get into permanent blacklists and it's= hard to remove. The
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0spam problem is so bad that most IPs are automatica= lly on a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0guilty-until-proven-innocent blacklist.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Often there is nothing you can do to get server IP = addresses removed
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0from spam blacklists or from "bad reputation&q= uot; lists.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ironically, hashcash-style proof-of-work stamps to = prevent spam are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0an appealing solution but not widely used in this c= ommunity. Or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0anywhere.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Infinite rejection or forwarding loops happen. They= often need to be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0detected through vigilance and require manual sysad= min intervention
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to solve.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bitcoin's dev lists being hosted alongside othe= r Open Source
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0projects was previously protective. If that mailing= list server
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0became blacklisted there were a lot of other people= who would notice
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and complain. If we run a Bitcoin-specific mail ser= ver we are on our
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0own. 100% of the administrative burden falls upon o= ur own people.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0There is also nothing we can do if some unknown adm= in decides they
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0don't like us.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Options
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Web forums are an interesting option, but often don= 't have good
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0email user integration. At most you can usually hop= e for email
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0notifications and an ability to reply by email. It = changes the model
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of the community from push (email) to pull (logging= into a forum to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0read). RSS feeds can help a little bit.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Many other projects have moved from mailing lists t= o forums (eg
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://discuss.python.org/ <https://dis= cuss.python.org/> =E2=80=93 see
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://lwn.net/Articles/901744/ <https://lwn.net/Articles/901744/>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0; or https://ethresear.ch/ <https://ethresear.ch/>), which seem
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0easier to maintain and moderate, and can have lots = of advanced
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0features beyond plaintext, maybe-threading and mayb= e-HTML-markup.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Who would host the forum? Would there be agreement = around which
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0forum software to use or which forum host? What abo= ut
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcointalk.org <http://bitcointalk.org> or= delvingbitcoin.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<http://delvingbitcoin.org>? There are ma= ny options available. Maybe
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0what we actually want isn=E2=80=99t so much a discu= ssion forum, as an 'arxiv
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of our own' where anons can post BIP drafts and= the like?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Given the problems with mailman2, and the decline o= f email
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communities in general, it seems that moving to mai= lman3 would not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0be a viable long-term option. This leaves us with G= oogle Groups or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0groups.io <http://groups.io> as two remaining options.<= br> >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0groups.io <http://groups.io> is an interesting option: = they are a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0paid service that implements email communities alon= g with online web
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0forum support. However, their public changelog indi= cates it has been
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a few years since their last public change. They mi= ght be a smaller
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0company and it is unclear how long they will be aro= und or if this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0would be the right fit for hosting sometimes conten= tious bitcoin
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0development discussions...
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Google Groups is another interesting option, and co= mes with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0different tradeoffs. It's the lowest effort to = maintain option, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0has both an email interface and web forum interface= . Users can
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0choose which mode they want to interact with.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0For the Google Groups web interface, you can use it= with a non-gmail
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0account, but you must create a Google Account which= is free to do.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0it does not require any personal information to do = so. This also
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0allows you to add 2FA. Non-gmail non-google users a= re able to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0subscribe and post email from their non-gmail non-g= oogle email
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0accounts. Tor seems to work for the web interface.<= br> >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Will Google shut it down, will they cut us off, wil= l they shut down
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0non-google users? The same problem exists with othe= r third-party hosts.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The moderation capabilities for Google Groups and <= a href=3D"http://groups.io" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">groups.io<= /a>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<http://groups.io> seem to be comparable. It seems= more likely that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Google Groups will be able to handle email delivery= issues far
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0better than a small resource-constrained operation = like grou= ps.io
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<http://groups.io>. ((During feedback for this dra= ft, luke-jr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0indicates that Google Workspaces has been known to = use blacklisted
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0IPs for business email!))
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On the other hand, groups.io <http://groups.io> is a pa= id service
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and you get what you pay for... hopefully?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Finally, another option is to do literally nothing.= It's less work
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0overall. Users can switch to forums or other websit= es, or private
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0one-on-one communication. It would remove a point o= f
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0semi-centralization from the bitcoin ecosystem. It = would hasten
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ossification, but on the other hand it would hasten= ossification and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0this could be a negative too. Moderators would be l= ess of a target.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Unfortunately, by doing nothing, there would be no = more widely used
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0group email communication system between bitcoin de= velopers.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Developers become less coordinated, mayhem and chao= s as people go to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0different communication platforms, a divided commun= ity is more
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0vulnerable, etc. BIP1 and BIP2 would need to be rev= ised for other
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0venues.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The main categories of what to move to are: web for= ums, mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0lists, and hybrids of those two options. Most every= thing is either
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0self-hosted or you pay someone else to host it. It&= #39;s kind of the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0same problem though. It largely depends on how good= is the software
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and unfortunately running your own MTA that forward= s mail is not a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0good option.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Going forward
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0We'd like to invite feedback and proposals from= the community, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0see what options are available. One potential optio= n is a migration
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to Google Groups, but we're open to ideas at th= is point. We
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0apologize for any inconvenience this disruption has= caused.
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bitcoin-dev mailing list moderation team
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bryan Bishop
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ruben Somsen
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Warren Togami
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0various others.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- Bryan
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://twitter.com/kanzure <https://twi= tter.com/kanzure>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0_______________________________________________
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcoin-dev mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://lists.= linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://li= sts.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000f02028060995a236--