The BSV Blockchain Community team recently held a Twitter (X) Space to discuss the launch of the BSV Association’s new Network Access Rules and Alert System.
The Space was hosted by BSV Blockchain’s Head of Community Brett Banfe and allowed members of the community to better understand the new rules and alert system. BSV Blockchain’s Director of Stewardship Connor Murray was also present to answer some of the important questions that the community may have.
A brief overview of the Network Access Rules and Alert System
The Network Access Rules (NAR) are rules regulating the relationship between the BSV Association and the nodes of BSV. It details their duties and obligations to the network and their relationship with the Association. The rules are grounded in the principles of the Bitcoin Protocol and the Bitcoin White Paper, ensuring that all nodes contribute to a lawful and honest network environment, providing transparency and guidance for network participants. Network activities in this instance include collecting, validating, or accepting a block, collating transactions into a block, attempting to find a proof-of-work for a block, or broadcasting a block.
The Alert System (AS), managed by the BSV Association (BSVA), is a crucial component within the BSV network as a sophisticated system for publishing messages within the network. These messages, which carry significant weight due to their association with the Network Access Rules (NAR), can be either notifications (like software update announcements) or directives (such as freeze, unfreeze, or reassign commands for transaction outputs).
The history of the Alert System
As part of the Twitter Space, Murray answered several important questions relating to the Network Access Rules and the Alert System – including the history of the system, the rights and responsibilities of the BSV Association, and the importance of scaling.
Murray began the session by discussing the history of the Alert System which dated back to an overflow bug that caused an increase in the bitcoin supply which necessitated Satoshi to roll the chain back to fix the exploit. Satoshi was previously able to make definitive updates such as node software updates which were widely understood to be de facto because of his stature. But there is now a need for an easy way to send alerts. These alerts can be related not only to determinations of exploits or attackers but to simple updates such as ‘there is a new node software release’ with assurance of the receipt of these alerts.
Murray added that there are some unique changes to the alert system as originally set out by Satoshi and its modern version. Notably, this version is built to suit modern-day needs for compliance and regulation such as the ability to freeze funds as exploits of crime or to reassign funds through a valid court order.
NAR and codifying expectations
Murray also discussed the importance of Satoshi’s vision of scaling the network to millions and billions of transactions which necessitates commercial partners who require defined rules. This necessitated the development of the NAR.
The purpose of the NAR is to codify the existing expectations of nodes within the white paper. Not to add any new rules or make any changes to an existing model. Murray also discussed the need for the protocol to be set in stone and to rely on a guiding north star for that definition as being:
“A transaction built today should be valid in 1,000 years. If it is invalid due to a change in the network protocol, then Bitcoin itself is broken,” he said.
The importance of rules
The BSV Association adheres to the vision of a single global chain with no forks. As part of this vision, there are specific requirements for Nodes and clear definitions. These definitions have always existed, but now they are highlighted for their importance and indisputability.
The spelling out of the exact functions and expectations of a node now also allows for much clearer definitions of actions of honest vs dishonest nodes. This can be used to quickly and easily detect and combat attackers on the network.
Murray discussed how the NAR are not one-way but are two-way rules that spell out clear roles and guidelines not only of what the Association expects of Nodes but what Nodes can expect of the Association.
Community Q&A
As part of the session, Murray also took questions directly from the audience about NAR and the Alert System. Some of the questions and answers have been summarised for conciseness.
Q: How are the NAR rules decided? Do the impacted miners get a say?
A: The NAR rules are a clarification of the rules of the white paper, and so they’ve always existed implicitly but now exist also explicitly. This is valuable to scaling up to large commercial partners which provide utility to the entire network as user fees lower and the network security increases through scaling.
Q: Was the requirement to implement the NAR in any way connected with the antics of the Empty Block Miner?
A: The rules were not a reaction to the empty block miner, but the empty block miner demonstrated the need for a clearer understanding of the implicit rules of the network.
Q: Why are these rules being published now?
A: The release was not coordinated around any specific timing needs, but simply was released once prepared for publication due to the dependencies that other developments have on the establishment of NAR and AS as well as DAR.
Q: Is the BSV Association imposing their subjective moral interpretation of the White Paper through NAR?
A: In some ways, the answer is yes because it is specifically intended to be compliant with both Swiss and UK law. For UK law there is a case of some precedent involving a unilateral contract offering similar to the model Bitcoin uses which involved sailboats. The case (known as The Satanita [1897] AC 59) laid the foundation for efficient and easy amendments to hundreds and thousands of ISDA master trading agreements and should continue to play a role in shaping development and innovation in contracting through smart contracts. Using this case as a basis, posting the on-chain smart contract on the blockchain acts as an offer. Acceptance can be by performance, for example by transferring control of a digital asset to the smart contract (including a digital representation of an offline asset).
A full summary of the Satanita case and its importance can be found in a legal note authored by Akber Datoo and Jeffrey Golden here.
Murray noted that in other respects, the idea that this is a moral interpretation is somewhat ambiguous because at the end of the day, this is just a clarification of existing rules that have existed in more of a background capacity and now are simply brought to the forefront for explicit confirmation.
It’s even possible that perhaps there is something key that was missed or something that wasn’t captured perfectly, and this is an opportunity to invite any persons, whether they be actively hashing and building blocks or are simply users of the network who are interested in contributing to reach out and add their perspective.