<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Matt,</div><div><br></div><div>&gt; Ignoring the threats in the letter<br><br>There are no threats in the letter, I&#39;m not sure why you</div><div>think there are.</div><div><br>&gt; there&#39;s also a question of what the desire is - some signers specifically<br>&gt; want CTV + CSFS now, some signers are worried about &quot;Bitcoin&#39;s ossification&quot;<br>&gt; and just want to see progress on changes (in some cases even GCC making<br>&gt; progress may suffice!), while yet others want other specific things and<br>&gt; imagine that the politics of getting their thing will be easier once CTV +<br>&gt; CSFS happens. These all mandate drastically different responses, yet again<br>&gt; because they&#39;re all bunched into one letter we cannot figure out what it is<br>&gt; 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&#39; 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&#39;t) sign and this was made very clear. Some people didn&#39;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 &lt;<a href="mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com">lf-lists@mattcorallo.com</a>&gt; 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>
&gt; Quickly chiming in here. I&#39;m digging in heavily to the different needs and drivers of businesses and <br>
&gt; individuals in the space. I think James is being quite literal here. There is not unity on what <br>
&gt; should happen after if we reach 2026 without any progress on covenants.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Not speaking for James, but from what I&#39;ve seen there is no substance or chatter regarding any such <br>
&gt; &quot;vague threat&quot;.<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 &quot;activation client&quot;, meanwhile when I talk to <br>
other signers they&#39;re really just trying to encourage more focused research on things in this area. <br>
Those are *drastically* different views, yet both are &quot;covered&quot; by the same letter.<br>
<br>
Worse yet, there&#39;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&#39;s also a question of what the desire is - some signers <br>
specifically want CTV + CSFS now, some signers are worried about &quot;Bitcoin&#39;s ossification&quot; 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&#39;re all bunched into one letter we cannot figure out what it is that they actually want.<br>
<br>
Instead, and I&#39;ve encouraged various people who&#39;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 &quot;We Want Things&quot; sign-on letter, <br>
individual messages indicating desire to utilize features is way more compelling, not just to <br>
overall impression of Bitcoin&#39;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 &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; 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 &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; 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 />