On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 01:23:06PM +0000, Andrew Poelstra wrote: > > The usual purpose of an open letter is to generate public pressure against > > the target (otherwise, if you didn't want to generate public pressure, you > > would send a private letter). > There isn't really any place to send a "private" letter.
Here's one way to get a list of such places: $ git log src/script/ | grep ^Author: | head -n10000 | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -n20 I feel pretty sure you've got my telegram contact info too, if nothing else. > And of course I could email specific developers personally, but there > are no individuals that it makes sense to target, because this isn't an > individual problem. It's an incentive problem. I think if you're looking at it as "targeting" people, that's probably not going to be very constructive. It certainly comes across as an implied threat. > My goal was to start exactly this discussion, by talking about the role > Core plays in this ecosystem and pointing to (in my view) the incentive > problems that are getting in the way of that role. I've written my perspective of what core's role in this should be [0], and am happy to discuss that further if there's some way in which that approach falls apart. The approach proposed there doesn't require pressuring core for support. [0] https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/bitcoin-forking-guide/1451 >From my perspective, the CTV discussion has missed important steps, and instead of those steps being taken, advocates have been attempting to use public pressure to force adoption on an "accelerated timeline" pretty much continuously for at least three years now. I've tried to help CTV advocates take the steps I believe they've missed, but it's mostly resulted in silence or insults rather than anything constructive. At least from where I sit, this is just creating incentive problems, not solving them. > I apologize if it comes off as an ultimatum -- it has a timeline, but > one for a "respectful ask" for "review and integration" and no specified > consquences Asking for "integration" as well as review presupposes the outcome of the review, which doesn't come across as very respectful of the reviewers' opinions, for what it's worth. To analogise to book publishing, there are two sorts of review one might undertake: if you're an editor or beta reader, when you review a book, you can engage with the author and suggest ways in which the book seems flawed and can be improved; on the other hand, if you're a columnist, the book is already published, and the only thing you can do is recommend whether the book is worth buying and reading or not. If you're asking for the first sort of review, for that to be a success, you need an author or community that's willing to engage with criticisms, rather than, for instance, dismissing them in advance as bikeshedding. Matt's already raised some specific issues in this thread that could be engaged with and resolved, for instance, as has Greg Sanders. I don't think you've engaged with either, and while James has, it's only been to dismiss them. If you really want this to be treated as final unchangeable proposal and just get a detailed "CTV+CSFS sucks, 0 stars, NACK" review that will inevitably be used to justify another round of "core are idiots who are killing bitcoin, we have to replace them now", I guess I can provide that; but I don't see a way of doing that while maintaining my (already pretty shaky) assumption that "this is a serious proposal by serious people who are willing to engage with criticism and resolve problems with their ideas, they're just ... a bit over-excited and have other demands on their time right now I guess". Cheers, aj -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/aEvC_zT3TEsjxc9o%40erisian.com.au.
