On 6/11/25 8:59 PM, Harsha Goli wrote:
Quickly chiming in here. I'm digging in heavily to the different needs and drivers of businesses and
individuals in the space. I think James is being quite literal here. There is not unity on what
should happen after if we reach 2026 without any progress on covenants.
Not speaking for James, but from what I've seen there is no substance or chatter regarding any such
"vague threat".
I do think this highlights why sign-on letters tend to have little impact and are really quite
useless for this kind of thing: when you actually go talk to people, you come away understanding
that they have very different views on the issue at hand.
Some signers appear to have intention to release an "activation client", meanwhile when I talk to
other signers they're really just trying to encourage more focused research on things in this area.
Those are *drastically* different views, yet both are "covered" by the same letter.
Worse yet, there's now organizations signing this letter (yay NYA reprisal!), which similarly cannot
possibly be filled with people with identical views (of course organizations themselves cannot opine
on technical bitcoin decisions, individuals do, there is good reason why organizations do not have a
role within IETF, only engineers expressing their own opinions, which may benefit their organization).
Ignoring the threats in the letter, there's also a question of what the desire is - some signers
specifically want CTV + CSFS now, some signers are worried about "Bitcoin's ossification" and just
want to see progress on changes (in some cases even GCC making progress may suffice!), while yet
others want other specific things and imagine that the politics of getting their thing will be
easier once CTV + CSFS happens. These all mandate drastically different responses, yet again because
they're all bunched into one letter we cannot figure out what it is that they actually want.
Instead, and I've encouraged various people who've signed to do this, having engineers who wish to
utilize these features speak up about what, specific, tools and protocols they wish to build using
CTV + CSFS would be much more interesting. Unlike a generic "We Want Things" sign-on letter,
individual messages indicating desire to utilize features is way more compelling, not just to
overall impression of Bitcoin's consensus, but also to the individuals deciding what to do with
their time - now you can see actual real-world desires.
Matt
--
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/8d158e3d-b3cc-44b6-b71b-ab2e733c047c%40mattcorallo.com.
