There is much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the response to them. I've been searching for the right words to share here, but I think it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a timely small step with the below comments.
I'm skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you are interested in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let's try to keep this thread focused on the actual work. I'll make some limited comments on the drama in a separate thread, for those who care to hear from me on the subject directly.
I believe that the disinformation spread around my post ("7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119"[0]) created three main negative outcomes within the Bitcoin community:
1. Confusion about how Bitcoin's "technical consensus" works and how changes are "approved".
2. Fear about the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly.
3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, User Activated Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, Hard Forks, and more.
While I cannot take responsibility for the spread of the disinformation, I do apologize to anyone dealing with it for the role my actions have had in leading to the current circumstance.
I personally take some solace in knowing that the only way out of this is through it. The conversations happening now seem to have been more or less inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a technical community we are able to address them head on if -- as individuals and collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, these conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participate in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise. Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a small role in such an important process. This is the work.
In the coming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the work is clear cut that we should undertake at least the following:
1. Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin's technical consensus process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be formally reviewed while still being unofficially advanced.
2. Work diligently to address the concerns many in the community have around the negative potential of covenants and better explain the trade-offs between levels of functionality.
3. Renew conversations about activation and release mechanisms and re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have been acceptable for Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be optimal long term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the Bitcoin network's diverse interests and requirements.
4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowledge around covenant technologies so that in the coming months we may work towards delivering a coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to evaluate and put up for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set of upgrades to improve Bitcoin's capabilities for self sovereignty, privacy, scalability, and decentralization.
This may not be the easiest path to take, but I believe that this work is critical to the future of Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your thoughts with this list on how we might work towards consensus going forward, including any criticisms of my observations and recommendations above. While I would expect nothing less than passionate debate when it comes to Bitcoin, remember that at the end of the day we all largely share a mission to make the world a freer place, even if we disagree about how we get there.
Yours truly,
Jeremy