<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Matt,</div><div><br></div><div>> Ignoring the threats in the letter<br><br>There are no threats in the letter, I'm not sure why you</div><div>think there are.</div><div><br>> there's also a question of what the desire is - some signers specifically<br>> want CTV + CSFS now, some signers are worried about "Bitcoin's ossification"<br>> and just want to see progress on changes (in some cases even GCC making<br>> progress may suffice!), while yet others want other specific things and<br>> imagine that the politics of getting their thing will be easier once CTV +<br>> CSFS happens. These all mandate drastically different responses, yet again<br>> because they're all bunched into one letter we cannot figure out what it is<br>> that they actually want.<br><br>As the person who coordinated the letter, I can say that this is not an<br>accurate characterization of the signers' intent. Everyone who signed<br>explicitly wants to see the imminent review, integration, and activation<br>planning for CTV+CSFS specifically. The letter is intentionally concise to make<br>sure there are no misunderstandings about that.<br><br>I spoke to each person on the original list of signatories who either did (or<br>didn't) sign and this was made very clear. Some people didn't sign as a result<br>of what the letter says. <br><br>The additional viewpoints you list may be shared by some signers, but the point<br>of signing the letter was to signal unambiguous support for the nearterm<br>integration of CTV+CSFS.<br><br>Best,<br>James<br><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 2:06 PM Matt Corallo <<a href="mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com">lf-lists@mattcorallo.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br> <br> On 6/11/25 8:59 PM, Harsha Goli wrote:<br> <br> > Quickly chiming in here. I'm digging in heavily to the different needs and drivers of businesses and <br> > individuals in the space. I think James is being quite literal here. There is not unity on what <br> > should happen after if we reach 2026 without any progress on covenants.<br> > <br> > Not speaking for James, but from what I've seen there is no substance or chatter regarding any such <br> > "vague threat".<br> <br> I do think this highlights why sign-on letters tend to have little impact and are really quite <br> useless for this kind of thing: when you actually go talk to people, you come away understanding <br> that they have very different views on the issue at hand.<br> <br> Some signers appear to have intention to release an "activation client", meanwhile when I talk to <br> other signers they're really just trying to encourage more focused research on things in this area. <br> Those are *drastically* different views, yet both are "covered" by the same letter.<br> <br> Worse yet, there's now organizations signing this letter (yay NYA reprisal!), which similarly cannot <br> possibly be filled with people with identical views (of course organizations themselves cannot opine <br> on technical bitcoin decisions, individuals do, there is good reason why organizations do not have a <br> role within IETF, only engineers expressing their own opinions, which may benefit their organization).<br> <br> Ignoring the threats in the letter, there's also a question of what the desire is - some signers <br> specifically want CTV + CSFS now, some signers are worried about "Bitcoin's ossification" and just <br> want to see progress on changes (in some cases even GCC making progress may suffice!), while yet <br> others want other specific things and imagine that the politics of getting their thing will be <br> easier once CTV + CSFS happens. These all mandate drastically different responses, yet again because <br> they're all bunched into one letter we cannot figure out what it is that they actually want.<br> <br> Instead, and I've encouraged various people who've signed to do this, having engineers who wish to <br> utilize these features speak up about what, specific, tools and protocols they wish to build using <br> CTV + CSFS would be much more interesting. Unlike a generic "We Want Things" sign-on letter, <br> individual messages indicating desire to utilize features is way more compelling, not just to <br> overall impression of Bitcoin's consensus, but also to the individuals deciding what to do with <br> their time - now you can see actual real-world desires.<br> <br> Matt<br> <br> -- <br> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.<br> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:bitcoindev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br> To view this discussion visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/8d158e3d-b3cc-44b6-b71b-ab2e733c047c%40mattcorallo.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/8d158e3d-b3cc-44b6-b71b-ab2e733c047c%40mattcorallo.com</a>.<br> </blockquote></div> <p></p> -- <br /> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.<br /> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br /> To view this discussion visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAPfvXfLc5-%3DUVpcvYrC%3DVP7rLRroFviLTjPQfeqMQesjziL%3DCQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAPfvXfLc5-%3DUVpcvYrC%3DVP7rLRroFviLTjPQfeqMQesjziL%3DCQ%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />