Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] CTV + CSFS: a letter

From: Matt Corallo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:43:30 -0400

On 6/12/25 2:38 PM, James O'Beirne wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> 
>  > Ignoring the threats in the letter
> 
> There are no threats in the letter, I'm not sure why you
> think there are.
> 
>  > 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.
> 
> As the person who coordinated the letter, I can say that this is not an
> accurate characterization of the signers' intent. Everyone who signed
> explicitly wants to see the imminent review, integration, and activation
> planning for CTV+CSFS specifically. The letter is intentionally concise to make
> sure there are no misunderstandings about that.

But see this doesn't contradict what I said. Just because people think that CTV+CSFS should be 
activated on some kind of accelerated timeline does not mean that they want it *because* they want 
CTV+CSFS. They might (and based on my discussions some do) want it because it "prevents 
ossification", or because it, in their view, unblocks progress towards something they have a more 
immediate use-case for. Some, certainly, want it because they have a use for it themselves, but 
others probably not so much.

Its the *why* that matters, not the ask, because, again, they all merit drastically different responses.

> I spoke to each person on the original list of signatories who either did (or
> didn't) sign and this was made very clear. Some people didn't sign as a result
> of what the letter says.
> 
> The additional viewpoints you list may be shared by some signers, but the point
> of signing the letter was to signal unambiguous support for the nearterm
> integration of CTV+CSFS.

You may want to talk to Andrew Poelstra again, who on this list wrote

 > 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.

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-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6a2f67ac-f273-4fef-88dd-a2dd5b20e5ff%40mattcorallo.com.