-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi all,
There is much to address, but today I'd just like to bring up a narrower and more pressing matter. It's my understanding that the latest version of BU is defaulting to having ABC settings turned on, including CTOR and the enabling of DSV.
As I am still partial to the SV view, I am opposed to CTOR and DSV (BUIP095) being included in the Bitcoin and/or Bitcoin Cash blockchain. That said, BU's mission was to offer miners the ability to make their own choice regarding which controversial settings to mine with, without having those choices be entangled with their choice of development team. As such, I initially saw the BU ideal as being to enable every controversial change as an ON/OFF setting.
Nevertheless, besides the issue of biasing the result by having ABC settings enabled by default (I am opposed to any defaults, incuding SV's; the obvious most neutral thing to do is have the user be prompted to specifically choose each setting at startup), there is a more fundamental matter that makes me question the premise that BU can remain fully neutral.
The specter of legal ramifications around DSV has been raised. Regardless of the validity of Craig Wright's claims about DSV legality and regardless of our opinions on what the law ought to be, the general principle raises a serious question about controversial changes:
If there is even a small doubt as to the legality of including something in the BU software, can BU feasibly hope to remain neutral? If miners feel a need to avoid running software that can facilitate them doing something that incurs liability even if it is "just an option," is there any hope of practical neutrality where all controversial changes are included in BU software?
Although I did not vote for BUIP095 (OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY) and although I have no legal or coding expertise, I missed the chance to vote against it explicitly, and the BUIP did pass the overall BU vote. Therefore, to clarify any doubts as to my position as a Bitcoin Unlimited member, I hereby disavow BUIP095, and I recommend OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY not be included in BU software, nor any similar variants such as OP_DATASIGVERIFY, especially not enabled by default. I will hold this position at least until a thorough legal review can be conducted.
This is not a partisan choice; I have the same view about any SV change that anyone can credibly argue might introduce new legal issues. If OP_MUL, for instance, can be shown to bring any possible new legal issue I will likewise say, "As a BU member I disavow it. Let SV deal with any liability itself, or do the legwork of showing why it is safe."
Likewise this has no connection to what I personally believe the law should be, nor whether we should even have this kind of government. It's a matter of the law as it exists and whether Bitcoin is made into a target. As it stands, Bitcoin seems in a very happy place where it appears remarkably hard to deem illegal under present law despite its radical usefulness. Whether this was by design or by a great coincidence, I'd like to keep it that way.
One may fairly point out that as both a non-expert on code and a non-expert on law, under the principle set forth by this precedent, I cannot cast any more votes on any changes - not even those favored by SV. Unfortunately, I must agree, at least as soon as anyone raises a credible legal argument against any such change. (I happen to find the idea "general building blocks, rather than specific designs that enable specific activities, are not legally liable" pretty convincing, but that is outside the scope of this post.)
As Bitcoin matures, we must face the reality that Bitcoin exists in the real world, subject to existing law for the foreseeable future despite whatever hopes we hold for its eventual ability to change legal systems. As such it is inevitable that its development be increasingly relegated to professionals informed by expert legal guidance, likely at the direct behest of miners.
Where this leaves BU is uncertain, but changes specifically designed to "kick the hornet's nest" on the reasoning that "who ever cared about staying within the law anyway? This is Bitcoin!" seem ill-considered, regardless of origin. Love or hate CSW, and agree or disagree with his legal arguments, he is correct that there are no simple answers here, and that bitcoiners have fallen into the error of imagining Bitcoin to be inherently extralegal or designed specifically to circumvent the law.
Bitcoin has the ability to create radical change over the next few decades, but as for the present day it walks a fine line, and "just giving an option" may not protect BU miners if that option is regarded as categorically legally different than something like the choice of the size of blocks (or the basic low-level math operations in a language offering no specific privileged function other than a known legal one, i.e., basic money).
"Are lawyers with yappy arguments really going to let us limit Bitcoin?"
Limit no, probably not in any important way, but delay yes. Every change must be not only technically and economically sound, but also not open any large new legal attack surface. This throws a monkey wrench in BU's mission of neutrality, but hopefully going forward teams will start giving some thought to the legal side as well, and anything questionable will not gain traction.
Yes, I'm well aware that could mean nothing gains traction ever again, due to legal fears. Despite any notion of it being good to "lock down the code," I don't think the legal uncertainty helps anything, but reality is reality. Govs are NOT cracking down on Bitcoin, and this is a small miracle that has gone unappreciated. I know many here have been around long enough to remember when the idea that Bitcoin would be opposed by governments from the moment it was really on their radar was taken as obvious. I haven't seen anyone reflect on just how "lucky" Bitcoin has been to escape crackdowns in just about every country on the planet.
As more coins do get government attention, I think the reality will set in that Bitcoin is a very specific design and not a free-for-all. Witness data was integrated for a reason. The ledger is transparent for a reason. The scripting language is generic and low-level for a reason. Maybe one day it will be more of a Wild West, but Bitcoin as it stands is the ultimate subtle-knife exemplar of "working within the system to change the system."
As we say that the main reason people don't understand Bitcoin is they don't understand money, likewise I suspect the reason people don't understand the legality concerns over DSV is they don't understand that Bitcoin was designed with a deep understanding of the common law around money. It is not magically above the law because "the state can't touch Bitcoin or its users." That illusion was shattered years ago, yet they do leave Bitcoin alone as a whole. Think on whether this is really a coincidence, and whether things can be arbitrarily shifted around with expediency for various pet use cases as the sole standard of evaluation. Satoshi warned against the "pirate money" image and said "don't 'bring it on'" because he knew there was a way to stay legal while Bitcoin grew too big to be stopped.
Zangelbert Bingledack, November 9th, 2018
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
19a3fheZVGragEreBzXhjWMuSev2PrHToF
GzHQ+ySpDyt6CfPFBwE4jiKmzpUeMnAM5AU4Ig50pnNRrv/Adj1SIZiy1GnS45MhLnV7fAenPHU3AP8GIsyZNpc=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
