Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bitcoin Node Maintainer #66

Open
cbeams opened this issue Jan 9, 2018 · 68 comments
Open

Bitcoin Node Maintainer #66

cbeams opened this issue Jan 9, 2018 · 68 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@cbeams
Copy link
Member

@cbeams cbeams commented Jan 9, 2018

This @bisq-network/btcnode-maintainers role is responsible for maintaining the shared configuration for @bisq-network's federation of @bitcoin nodes, as hard-coded in https://github.com/bisq-network/exchange/blob/master/core/src/main/java/io/bisq/core/btc/BitcoinNodes.java.

This role should maintain a shared bitcoin.conf file in this repository, and work with @bisq-network/btcnode-operators to make sure they run the same configuration there.

This role is responsible for responding in a timely fashion to GitHub issues added to this repository, questions asked in the #bisq-btcnode channel, and to ensure that monitoring notifications in #alerts get handled in a timely fashion.


Docs: none, other than the above
Team: @bisq-network/btcnode-maintainers
Primary owner: @sqrrm
Secondary: @wiz

cbeams added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 9, 2018
And link to new issue for "Bitcoin Node Operator" role (#39 => #67)

See bisq-network/dao#28
@cbeams cbeams removed the a:role label May 4, 2018
@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jun 29, 2018

2018.06 report

Took over role as maintainer halfway through the month. Nothing to report on nodes.

@ManfredKarrer @cbeams Regarding maintaining the issue, is there a way for me to update the initial issue #66 (comment) to keep it relevant?

@cbeams
Copy link
Member Author

@cbeams cbeams commented Jul 6, 2018

@sqrrm wrote:

Regarding maintaining the issue, is there a way for me to update the [issue description] to keep it relevant?

In short, yes, but it'll work a little differently than that. I'll have instructions for all role owners about this soon. Thanks.

@cbeams
Copy link
Member Author

@cbeams cbeams commented Jul 17, 2018

@sqrrm, regarding keeping the description for this role (and the Tor Relay Operator role at #72) up to date, I mentioned above that I'd have instructions for all role owners on this soon, but what I'd actually like to do, if you're willing, is to have you try out the instructions first and provide feedback about it before I send out a broader request to have everyone do the same.

I'll provide a little context here, so that hopefully everything makes sense, but in the end, it should be a fairly simple task, one that will probably take 30 minutes or perhaps an hour for most roles.

First it's a good idea to read through the new Roles doc at https://docs.bisq.network/roles.html if you haven't already. It provides (hopefully) everything that contributors need to know about how roles work.

The relevant section of that doc that I want to focus on here is the Docs section at https://docs.bisq.network/roles.html#docs:

image

To follow those instructions for this role, you'd put together a pull request against the bisq-docs repository that adds a btcnode.adoc file. That file would include:

  • an Introduction section that explains what the Bisq federation of Bitcoin Core nodes is for, how it helps protect user privacy, etc.
  • an Infrastructure section that mentions the bisq-btcnode repository and btcnode slack channel.
  • a Roles section that details the Duties, Rights, GH Issue and GH Team for both the btcnode Maintainer and Operator roles.
  • if appropriate, a Processes section that details any processes involved with btcnodes, e.g. upgrades.

The Proposals doc at https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html provides an example for what such a doc should look like; please treat it as a template.

You'll also want to add an entry to index.adoc to make sure that your new btcnode.adoc doc is discoverable. For right now, you can just put it at the bottom of the list in the Contributor Docs section. I plan to revise the index page soon to better accommodate these kinds of docs.

One of the effects of having these docs is that the descriptions in role issues like this one become simple, uniform, and largely unchanging. There's little need to "keep them up to date", and that avoids permissions problems like the one you had where you were unable to edit this issue (because I was the one who created it). The description ends up being as simple as this:

Docs: https://docs.bisq.network/btcnode.adoc#maintainer
Team: @bisq-network/btcnode-maintainers
Primary owner: @sqrrm

So, please let me know if it works for you to do this, and I'll look out for your PR. Thanks!

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jul 18, 2018

@cbeams I'll try to get that done, hopefully by the end of this week. Will let you know.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jul 23, 2018

@cbeams I tried writing this up but three times I gave up. It's in principle not a hard task but I find administrative tasks energy draining so I just push it as long as I can. This is probably not the case for everyone but for me I would waste days of energy on something that, as you say, should take 30 minutes for someone with the inclination. The issues I face are:

  • I don't enjoy writing documentation and thus lack motivation but I don't mind the technical details of the role
  • There is process that needs to be followed and learned but the benefit seems small for the energy spent
  • The need to learn adoc notation to write a reasonable document

I think it would be better to get someone to write these docs up in a minimal fashion for the maintainers to fix if need be. I suspect someone might actually enjoy doing this whereas I and perhaps others with a similar aversion to administrative tasks would be turned off and even avoid taking on roles that could otherwise be taken.

@cbeams
Copy link
Member Author

@cbeams cbeams commented Jul 23, 2018

Understood, @sqrrm, and it’s good feedback all the same. Thanks.

/cc @m52go

@m52go
Copy link
Contributor

@m52go m52go commented Jul 25, 2018

Yeah @sqrrm I don't blame you. I'm willing to write the doc if you're willing to provide the details.

But in order to start, I need basic details covering the required content. Let me know if that already exists somewhere.

Otherwise, we could proceed in 2 ways:

  • you produce quick written notes that cover the items @cbeams mentioned above. They don't need to be remotely well-formed or even readable (i.e., a "brain dump").
  • we have a quick 10-15 minute phone conversation where we talk through the content.

Let me know what you think, or if you've got any other suggestions.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jul 30, 2018

2018.07 report

During the month there has been no noticeable events.

There is a new minor bitcoind version out but we have earlier decided to only try to move quickly to new major versions. There is also a question if we actually want to move to 0.17.x when it arrives, to be discussed separately when it's more relevant.

The process of moving to new role management and documentation has been slow, partially due to me and partially due to the process. I will try to get this done for the bitcoin nodes next month with the help of @m52go That should work as a template for the other roles.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Aug 31, 2018

2018.08 report

Nothing noticeable to report.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Apr 14, 2020

Cycle 12 report

There hasn't been any particular issues or anything to report over the last cycle. This is good.

bisq-network/compensation#536

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented May 17, 2020

Cycle 13 report

Nothing to report.

bisq-network/compensation#564

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jun 4, 2020

Bitcoin 0.20.0 is out. I don't see anything that warrants a rapid upgrade but I also see nothing that would prevent us from upgrading the federated nodes. I suggest we go ahead and upgrade to 0.20.0 as we feel like.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jun 19, 2020

Cycle 14 report

As mentioned, there is a new version out.

bisq-network/compensation#597

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jul 20, 2020

Cycle 15 report

Nothing to report

bisq-network/compensation#623

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Aug 30, 2020

Cycle 16 report

Bitcoin core 0.20.1 has been released. Nothing in there strikes me as important for Bisq. Upgrade at whichever pace is my suggestion.

bisq-network/compensation#646

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Sep 22, 2020

Cycle 17 report

Nothing worth reporting in bitcoin core land. Blockchain size increasing. Nodes running. Bitcoins moving.

bisq-network/compensation#667

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Oct 23, 2020

Cycle 18 report

Looks like taproot and Schnorr sigs are coming, merged into core. Not really relevant for Bisq just yet, and perhaps never if we have to move off chain before that goes live. Nothing else to report in bitcoin land.

bisq-network/compensation#693

@wiz
Copy link
Member

@wiz wiz commented Oct 25, 2020

Cycle 18 report

Bitcoin Core 0.21 will feature Tor v3 onion hostnames, but Bisq currently cannot connect to them due to lack of support in bitcoinj maintainer. The maintainer of bitcoinj has very kindly agreed to implement support for it in bitcoinj/bitcoinj#2067

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Nov 26, 2020

Cycle 19 report

I have nothing to report.

bisq-network/compensation#721

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Dec 28, 2020

Cycle 20 report

There is a lot of talk about PSBT changes and associated api changes for core but I don't think there's anything in there that affects bisq.

bisq-network/compensation#747

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jan 18, 2021

Version 0.21.0 is out. To continue using a tor v2 address, copy onion_private_key over onion_v3_private_key.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jan 27, 2021

Cycle 21 report

Take care with the new version when upgrading to 0.21.0+ to keep using the tor v2 address.

bisq-network/compensation#773

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Mar 3, 2021

Cycle 22 report

A lot of talk about LOT true or false for taproot activation. Once there is a release out I think it would be good to have a discussion on this to see if the Bisq DAO wants to have an opinion.

bisq-network/compensation#788

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Apr 2, 2021

Cycle 23 report

Didn't see anything notable for Bisq this month. Seems a taproot activation plan is coming together.

bisq-network/compensation#817

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented May 7, 2021

Cycle 24 report

Taproot signalling version is released. Doesn't affect our federated nodes but noteworthy nonetheless. Hoping for taproot activation this year and at that point it would matter.

bisq-network/compensation#838

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
7 participants