doc: Update asmap-data repository rule for file inclusion

fjahr commented at 9:23 am on March 6, 2026: contributor

This updates the decision rule for file inclusion in the asmap-data repository after a collaborative run following discussion in the latest run: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/asmap-data/issues/44

The change is small but does a few things:

No minimum number of participants recommended anymore
Minimum number of matches set to 5 (which was previously the number of recommended min participants)
The result that is taken does not need to see a match between the majority of participants, it only needs to have the most matches
Participants that saw a match should sign for it

I also thought about adding an explicit tie-breaker if there are two results with the same number of matches but since both results are equally valid I think it won’t be needed (?)

DrahtBot added the label Docs on Mar 6, 2026

DrahtBot commented at 9:24 am on March 6, 2026: contributor

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	hodlinator, luisschwab
Concept ACK	janb84

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!–meta-tag:bot-skip–> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

doc: Update asmap-data repository rule for file inclusion 8bc62ce173

fjahr force-pushed on Mar 6, 2026

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Mar 6, 2026

fanquake commented at 9:54 am on March 6, 2026: member

Could just combine this with #34696, with the new data? Seems like we want both to land for v31.

fjahr commented at 10:32 am on March 6, 2026: contributor

Could just combine this with #34696, with the new data? Seems like we want both to land for v31.

Ok, I will do that once we have processed and merged the new data so I can include it in #34696. Leaving this open for now in case there is feedback on wording etc. in the meantime.

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Mar 6, 2026

in doc/asmap-data.md:1 in 8bc62ce173

hodlinator commented at 11:02 am on March 6, 2026:

@fjahr bringing up sock-puppets¹ made me think of sybil-resistance wrt deciding on the hash reported by most participants. Rather same account with many machines, one could create multiple accounts and duplicate the data from one machine (possibly after manipulating it to skew bucketing?).

We probably should not be too concerned about that now, instead handling it if/when it happens.

https://github.com/bitcoin-core/asmap-data/issues/44#issuecomment-4010662647 ↩︎

fjahr commented at 11:26 am on March 6, 2026:

We probably should not be too concerned about that now, instead handling it if/when it happens.

Right, we have the same problem with code review ACKs and afaik we don’t have any explicit rules on that either. We just give the regular reviewers more weight than a unknown drive-by ACK. I guess the one difference is a unknown reviewer can still make good review comments and show they have put in the work which isn’t possible with the asmap run.

fanquake commented at 11:31 am on March 6, 2026:

a unknown reviewer

It’s also the case that, at least initially, there wasn’t so much cross-over from the asmap participants, and regular bitcoin-core contributors. Although hopefully that will never be an issue going forward, as contributors to this repo, should also be participating in asmap, the same as guix.sigs.

hodlinator approved

hodlinator commented at 11:10 am on March 6, 2026: contributor

ACK 8bc62ce173dd492ca862a692a88d526d406e0eb3

fanquake added this to the milestone 31.0 on Mar 6, 2026

luisschwab commented at 3:05 pm on March 6, 2026: contributor

ACK 8bc62ce173dd492ca862a692a88d526d406e0eb3

in doc/asmap-data.md:45 in 8bc62ce173

40@@ -41,9 +41,9 @@ To overcome this, multiple users can start the download process at the exact
41 same time which leads to a high likelihood that their downloaded data will be
42 similar enough that they receive the same output at the end of the process.
43 This process is regularly coordinated at the [asmap-data](https://github.com/asmap/asmap-data)
44-project. If enough participants have joined the effort (5 or more is recommended) and a majority of the
45-participants have received the same result, the resulting ASMap file is added
46-to the repository for public use. Files will not be merged to the repository
47+project. If the result hash that was observed by the most participants is signed
48+by 5 participants or more, the resulting ASMap file is added to the repository for

janb84 commented at 9:28 am on March 10, 2026:

0by 5 or more participants who themselves observed that result hash, the resulting ASMap file is added to the repository for

NIT, If the intent is that only observers who observed the matching hash should sign, this would make that more clear imho. (But it will break the no more minimal participants claim)

janb84 commented at 9:39 am on March 10, 2026: contributor

Concept ACK 8bc62ce173dd492ca862a692a88d526d406e0eb3

Without participating in the process, based on a pure interpretation of the text (and it’s changes).

As per PR description of the changes intended to make in the text:

The change is small but does a few things: No minimum number of participants recommended anymore

Indirect there is 5 participant minimum, otherwise the result cannot be added to the repository. But definition of a participant is ambiguous, are you a participant if you run the tool or are you also a participant if you only sign ?

Minimum number of matches set to 5 (which was previously the number of recommended min participants)

See above. It’s only stated that 5 signatures are needed, not matches.

The result that is taken does not need to see a match between the majority of participants, it only needs to have the most matches

This is now clearly communicated by the new text.

Participants that saw a match should sign for it

This is not communicated by the text. As I interpret the text, currently there is no rule that only participant who saw a match should/could/may sign it. A participant who ran the tool but din’t got a match but somehow got the correct file any still sign it and it would count as per text.

fanquake commented at 2:32 pm on March 10, 2026: member

Going to merge this as-is. Any further discussion can happen in #34696.

fanquake merged this on Mar 10, 2026

fanquake closed this on Mar 10, 2026

fjahr commented at 8:58 pm on March 10, 2026: contributor

@janb84 Thanks for your feedback! I agree that the text isn’t as clear as it could be and the abiguity you are highlighting turned out to be something where I only found out after writing this amendment that we were not aligned on all the details amongst the people working on this. See the discussion on this in #34696 (comment). I will wait a bit for further feedback there and open a follow-up to improve the text when the discussion has concluded.

doc: Update asmap-data repository rule for file inclusion #34751

Reviews