From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:59:16 -0700 Received: from mail-qk1-f186.google.com ([209.85.222.186]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uRbWb-0005V0-JW for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:59:16 -0700 Received: by mail-qk1-f186.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7d399065d55sf806102685a.1 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:59:13 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1750186748; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=ToGl59hTgE/5WYciyXJTqGoUcgV5Xt9UwsxX1bc9Ss7K32y0DTz2Ilr8Bxfwmb/GG2 SOaFELWmH6MBtCubWQ/NDRvcDo2+Dk3BAHuX/KnVLEB72IIj3R0/fPPZJ13NjfPc0y1i QwQ/EgY0XpCRtGj6RMEBFo9xhJt7ayMSZZGkAaH9Yu+kFse+JMoK5FohpN+gEKkfJjhu dJTUaPyoM+PYVGseOuqRPQGc5QFvt4xnVORa+SGpVskmKeErUuZU8PsKeLEnLmOCPoII vb5aVlQM93KLOPO0jvMZGj1bKik8sBdV2dnEguMj2IS60YXXwlum8rbCL9S7ag88pLKQ RAXA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:subject:date:from:cc:to:message-id :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:sender:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=r8n3y4fyfuXxTK2RnilQdQsLngF4KeihAhN8haPS6/4=; fh=rMluhWrtqJG/n4BuflJ8hJ1mW7M/WkUUqDnT8PUUjas=; b=LTZUyLuP6uV1V/xIRs0SAZyGj/pmVBIVrFD6yvCrPjr1HGvQFMkxkf2XZjKi72iMDS 24Ws4bAgp+ZOgc8i7w5abJWg8E68/VnGq4RUmA0Ikcb+JyVLqLaeonvgPle6EkmliVfD lFDDmJAHHnlNfGKvpo09y96hVkSXIx3oQ4CNoX/o3Tun1MKnKysOrY/qYrXFn5xT8NJz MMbIXkNlbZUJD+Z1I6elLon8HeBFzW/6TEYf9DTa4q9oUKiRl1TwK03geiPvBAsG88tU tWupqOUNPxlXH0xjHuzmc0NHeGh6c83WOq4VzxdnjdfjA+BdYDoestMtr0tRwg4bMDnD Gueg==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=dV+uUcDL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of harshagoli@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=harshagoli@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1750186748; x=1750791548; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:subject:date:from:cc:to:message-id:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=r8n3y4fyfuXxTK2RnilQdQsLngF4KeihAhN8haPS6/4=; b=RQlACof5761TAIhdMLmUwiTur9fKUEPOlnLouVobaRZIrqCDoANTPRi94d4MA6Hg0g 8w9Pa9K4SmN17fbltXr3INCGQ0oPFLACCqeUKi+siE4SQ3fazpdvLVqQium9o6N2ap4l sHk8aLlsWLPO2VkyltP/ynvap3NzgybLUbJqVc39IL+8qP1reaf8rFdwquwnpAgMSmch 09VsQ7FHXjbl3HWyJrYRf3dOiGfSFVaEwuWmkri+ojYoIaaqiKzgLStJx2uson1dEYxZ +AsbCGMoa2udpXpCNg/ETzMAAEIJ9GW+6LxfFGsCZfHWRCrF1Rnf+xuNSyq92S5HgonS 2xHQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1750186748; x=1750791548; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:subject:date:from:cc:to:message-id:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=r8n3y4fyfuXxTK2RnilQdQsLngF4KeihAhN8haPS6/4=; b=C+VbLrF+L9x6N2HyoosRLj95zHuYFS0Tuf4OcwvMjBY1C2ZUwulHTJL4WdtcTj+cog gmFc7uI/OESEr9oeKtLc5pMjQrIRGQLi7o/u6C/rwI0I9qj2BXR0kJmPLJ8AAU/eE90k TToctH+dO6NrlnGEAqtFp4eFaI8ZTBFhNQaC0+1j/JxFSurbQnI/P5AwSZE9T/N01pdP maq4lwbxgCtl7Pbm0inBfW3wY/Dny1mLa4YBimCrG3TsUatGekvfH3F5hs8pNeHlC0iD YGAOWpp7EnqhAEtaH1tO5+ERzHKrC0Jyjk7ZQjRDp17zwf3Fg/79gItbwPCMdQjEKm8q srNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1750186748; x=1750791548; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:subject:date:from:cc:to:message-id:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=r8n3y4fyfuXxTK2RnilQdQsLngF4KeihAhN8haPS6/4=; b=CIk3pW4aw8767PNrGUKKSozKv7vy/kvA2wzouSxrUdh+pk4EewIKAiX+K3+ojgl2ux 8JhRght5n9RnOOYoAj9DnuI07X8989eK8gudGcfLqKMSAW9W+5caRxDIL0kStGu4G+zU VInzTAWhnb3NIeo+xqH/Tsle0BaP88LjnwD/WoR8yVWgkwe0gaWZsw8ocbT+7adB1qjm 7V3ig7ca4/T0loX47Yqszb8Ptf50cNYWebOJNUwQH5cQZafYt4KFR8avyO7/0mdUZaLl Gnut3GPCQkp21zWVs4vbRPKmTsLBcR0K7Kozmjy2S2a5ZCuWMr/rsI6Lh+xKGyGLeTQ8 ieOg== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCX4XMdkHhoW4869Af7PE58qwkI3mVcr0plOIpzD6QAy6nTJW3BIm935pdPSVBJjoeHSleTgHQg+/FCp@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxQQfLW7tp+Jw17yEqLctg/dmLRuErokMHPHcA3mAua+hRHSq40 oBFzpHD1EiFSKADB0bgWoxalli0eHnPfvsgG2uXBE8dIZF6/aRVxhII7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGpvv19PZzefP94VKUm2yn+vyG8UvwHYs2zphln4GOVTU1LXC77zJBNli9UqlVD+EHTX7PCKg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:444f:b0:7ca:f2cf:eb8b with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7d3c6cdc998mr1975720385a.34.1750186747559; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=AZMbMZfNk3kkmZImGX6d1WhJcHI+hFrV4RjZvL/i0iPqycS/wQ== Received: by 2002:ac8:5d04:0:b0:477:c8a:e60b with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4a722c7eecals116855441cf.1.-pod-prod-02-us; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCVV5NgvSHd93+s+YCoDDgAUEB3FJagEt8af642BgFnqh/BX/oRLVADxHmobdZyNK4XEqpTmrnScyci4@googlegroups.com X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:405:b0:7d3:cf6f:89ad with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7d3cf6f89b2mr1574504385a.58.1750186744451; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:620a:5e16:b0:7b6:d2da:e6ae with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7d3e00890fams85a; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:40:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCV3EhvNnPdF1/iNTSxaPO4HZ3BHCNLudJpKhlX1m1+BOne5rpQwN8ukQFEkstTt69b0pNUGwBKesS/B@googlegroups.com X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d07:b0:6e8:ebc6:fd5f with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fb47758efamr221965606d6.20.1750178418611; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:40:18 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1750178418; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=JlR5lheLUlZ/53WdIE5zuxnRVQxzaAhvj0Co32s1xzRVgn5nv6n4B7vMWDB1zqahUU RNHLv+35n/EWf62spNpI5oBIw2upc04aum3xWw+ye7bMV2NKkIvfYPvo7PxvVCNO4u+S 10C9h/Dxf35Yid0Gcd/8UmWodWOLrzsQP6I6KWd5EElf1KHt0/LY5icCwqJw8UJl3Y/S 2XwU8wo054R1kP8MCBO7t2utC34R1kJx/rdQIQnDD/t+KumJWYuAxDO+4qFQ4c33cyfM ZOzr2sBqk5kzST92jL8zzSNhwoQT94gf4CFAs3C92ormF6P4Whchvc3vIphNCIdxiIkq miqw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=subject:date:from:cc:to:message-id:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=fQAvZ0BCONfLXCU0EzgSevfI25lqAa9nimpxoyWYCqA=; fh=4f8BMjLC429ZV5KFhVFKYcA5xaRlslvC5jKyTK31yts=; b=eSXGoIrsw2SEZwsslbo47yHYVcKSuIxAKquaPVCmQi1AndP9VsdmavMI2n0Rkcx2gm eIv3hLo5Xr2ng0ElMfkwLBs3lOQJuSaAnP+/Hojab06k+Ehy2dfWixC60mZ7wh/ee0wb WtKEUqo9ISXoAZ3AMPWUINC87qKsbMG54rf25fp+07nbhdPodkbZ954OoNVlwe/h1xh4 JhmCsESL3LvX+VTs2a3wxK+CD6xbq4WrPBcctoo/Og86+l54Wf2xRv7gpbEIdNbuqsPD hJRgW3xOWur6Q+uKZRZDTq1M/vIpV7najcKrXRSCVoLUwlD0SRWKukN/Euja+k9ABox3 Saeg==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=dV+uUcDL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of harshagoli@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=harshagoli@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6a1803df08f44-6fb5228e6d1si2438896d6.7.2025.06.17.09.40.18 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of harshagoli@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30; Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4e7eb3fad4fso3042438137.0 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:40:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWil1QlNc4rk2eT6gdT4jb5f6Fsxl92JkY3ZT/Z+tpeN02goYl6J2uwfeZ2pQEXix6R6lJObKVouUPl@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctxZ0yxO6tN8We29O3oHK95NNyadVz0A+1Jn4cQA5zP3THQsx0vJb+PFW9TuFb RyejkWWzYSbUTNy1Qp4DLxYIHxud13P5tTbliWidQDrL/S02U+/2bFIs2g5mZnwORbWSwATHA8D utO+mUQOG8ccRvD0pGUKKyeCd+OIjRbGgcKYy4QtJkhNVts/QQr5mz3uyYEx+X17vXDDl+BxPOC p+H5fFqCK+RiAazcccQZN2kePWFZLw9Cw8DSWAhqwqFUvDgxvB/XF9Ox4ExYiuYODxFfZ+aQ1ae o+1c6HzceXiCfx7F8ddtUsOGsZdzMhp5PZ0uip9oE17upu875WDLXv5waoVb6wvH9IlGqKGwIFB oXau+abqd9ficSEWvcug= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:6f02:b0:4e9:8f71:bd4f with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4e98f71bef5mr1457028137.3.1750178417685; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (0.92.231.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.231.92.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id a1e0cc1a2514c-87f0fd936e3sm1657044241.34.2025.06.17.09.40.17 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Superhuman-ID: mc0r10qu.3bcb07a6-31fe-4db6-b24c-f957558bb97f X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft002ee386f6ffb6e0 In-Reply-To: References: <035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef4a96320e1@roose.io> Message-ID: To: "Antoine Poinsot" Cc: "James O'Beirne" , "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" X-Mailer: Superhuman Web (2025-06-13T19:08:58.783Z) From: "Harsha Goli" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:40:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] CTV + CSFS: a letter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=2d92f34e865cc72bc297b6311ecb98ecf980e10cfd31895d77bef81dc204 X-Original-Sender: harshagoli@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=dV+uUcDL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of harshagoli@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=harshagoli@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) --2d92f34e865cc72bc297b6311ecb98ecf980e10cfd31895d77bef81dc204 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >=20 > =E2=80=8B If Bitcoin can be changed through a shouting match and on the b= asis of > misleading pseudo use cases, it would be a major fuck up. >=20 >=20 ACK >=20 > =E2=80=8B Bitcoin Core cannot, in my opinion, facilitate setting such a p= recedent. >=20 >=20 >=20 ACK >=20 > =E2=80=8B I trust we all both agree it is inadvisable to change the Bitco= in Core > decision process from making software changes based on objective rough > technical consensus toward making software changes based on the subjectiv= e > intentions of whoever has influence in the space at the moment. >=20 >=20 ACK >=20 >=20 >=20 > How could you ever think it be a "suitable next step"? Bitcoin Core > contributors spend their days maintaining the existing Bitcoin network, > where making it boringly stable is success. >=20 >=20 Many signatories were surprising to see. After speaking with them, they sig= ned not because they lack=C2=A0respect for core developer's priorities, or = take Bitcoin's boring stability for granted (I promise you I do not). Most people signed because they really had no idea what the next step ought= to be, and the pressure for transaction commitments was so much so that a = bad option (piling of a sign-on letter) was more optimal than inaction. In conversations prior to the letter going out (facilitated=C2=A0by my indu= stry survey), I only recieved admonishment of the letter from many of the s= ignatories. I actually don't know of a single person who considered it as a= n explicitly good idea. And still they signed. There's signal in that. >=20 > =E2=80=8B In conclusion, i would like to state i understand the frustrati= on of this > proposal not making progress and how it led many signatories to get on > board with the letter. >=20 >=20 I (and many signatories) also understand=C2=A0the frustration the letter ha= d for many folks. We did not intend to disrespect the important work perfor= med by anyone, nor did we intend to disrupt any roadmaps by a railroading o= f "our agenda". Having had the weekend to speak to many ctv+csfs proponents, I've made sure= to communicate this point of view to them. I've also made sure that there = is absolutely zero substance backing any "threat" but I now understand=C2= =A0earlier versions included=C2=A0considerations for an activation client (= which wasn't intended as a threat but I now understand=C2=A0how that could'= ve come across). For better or for worse, the letter happened. It carried many signals, and = it helped me understand how many people really needed this (that hadn't bee= n clear before). I'm going to try to make the best out of it, and utilize t= he ctv+csfs=C2=A0feedback that's come come out of it. With respect, Harsha, sometimes known as arshbot On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:34 AM, Antoine Poinsot < darosior@protonmail.com= > wrote: >=20 > Steven, >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> I'd like to first express my disappointment with the amount of drama thi= s >> letter has caused. >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Likewise. As i mentioned earlier i think this bundle of capabilities is > worth considering for a use case driven soft fork. I felt like, despite > the lack of substantive work on the proposal, we were finally going > somewhere in the discussion on extending Bitcoin's scripting capabilities= . >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Instead of addressing minor objections to the design of the operations an= d > working on demonstrating (real) use cases, the champion chose the route o= f > political pressure on the Bitcoin Core project. Signatories backed this > approach. >=20 >=20 >=20 > In changing Bitcoin, the process matters as much as the outcome. If > Bitcoin can be changed through a shouting match and on the basis of > misleading pseudo use cases, it would be a major fuck up. Likewise if a > suboptimal change can be rammed through without addressing objections and > reasonable requests from the technical community, by bamboozling industry > stakeholders into the false dichotomy "it's either this or ossification". >=20 >=20 >=20 > Bitcoin Core cannot, in my opinion, facilitate setting such a precedent. > Therefore this effort sets us back a long way in getting a consensus > change merged there, and on the broader path of extending Bitcoin's > scripting functionalities >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> It quite literally merely asks Core contributors to put this proposal on >> their agenda with some urgency. >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > This is incorrect and misrepresenting the content of the letter. It > specifically asks, i'm quoting "integration of CTV (PR #31989 ( > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989 ) or similar)". This is > asking Core to merge a pull request implementing a contentious consensus > change. And so, not by making the case for it with strong technical > arguments but by presenting signatures from industry stakeholders. I trus= t > we all both agree it is inadvisable to change the Bitcoin Core decision > process from making software changes based on objective rough technical > consensus toward making software changes based on the subjective > intentions of whoever has influence in the space at the moment. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Given that only a handful of Core contributors had thus far participated >> in the conversation on the proposal elsewhere >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > And pressure to merge code for an obviously controversial consensus chang= e > is a great way to make sure not more of them engage, if lurking at how pr= evious > CTV discussions went ( > https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ctv-csfs-can-we-reach-consensus-on-a-first-s= tep-towards-covenants/1509/37?u=3Dantoinep > ) wasn't enough. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> it seemed like a suitable next step to communicate that we want Core >> contributors to provide their position within this conversation >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > How could you ever think it be a "suitable next step"? Bitcoin Core > contributors spend their days maintaining the existing Bitcoin network, > where making it boringly stable is success. Asking the project to merge a > contentious consensus change, disregarding conceptual review, is just > laughable. I don't see how piling a sign-on letter on top of this would > improve anything. >=20 >=20 >=20 > In conclusion, i would like to state i understand the frustration of this > proposal not making progress and how it led many signatories to get on > board with the letter. I do not ascribe bad intentions to most of them. > However the effect of this letter has been, as could have been expected, = a > major setback in making progress on this proposal (or more broadly this > bundle of capabilities). I am not sure how we bounce back from this, but > it necessarily involves someone standing up and actually doing the work o= f > addressing technical feedback from the community and demonstrating (real) > use cases. The way forward must be by building consensus on the basis of > strong objective, technical, arguments. Not with a bunch of people statin= g > interest and nobody acting up and helping the proposal move forward. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Best, > Antoine Poinsot >=20 > On Tuesday, June 17th, 2025 at 7:31 AM, Steven Roose < steven@ roose. io = ( > steven@roose.io ) > wrote: >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Hey all >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> I've been following the discussion and noticed TXHASH is mentioned a lot= . >> As a signer of the letter and author of the TXHASH proposal, I'd like to >> chime in with some thoughts. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> However, I'd like to first express my disappointment with the amount of >> drama this letter has caused. It quite literally merely asks Core >> contributors to put this proposal on their agenda with some urgency. No >> threats, no hard words. >> Given that only a handful of Core contributors had thus far participated >> in the conversation on the proposal elsewhere, it seemed like a suitable >> next step to communicate that we want Core contributors to provide their >> position within this conversation. >> I strongly stand against an approach involving independent activation >> clients and I think the sentiment of this e-mail aligns with the >> preference of having Core be involved in any deployment of protocol >> upgrades. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On the proposal itself. I have heard some mentions of TXHASH and why we, >> as the developer community, wouldn't go straight for TXHASH. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> * I think TXHASH is too far from being ready at this point: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> * The TXHASH BIP and spec has not had the level of review/engagement tha= t >> I had hoped for. I'm personally pretty happy with the result, especially >> since it only has had serious looks from myself and Rearden. But it >> definitely needs a lot more scrutiny. It's a very opinionated design (I >> think it's unavoidable for such an opcode), so there is a lot of room fo= r >> making different and maybe better decisions on many fronts. >>=20 >> * Once we have the TXHASH semantics, it would be very valuable to consid= er >> also introducing the same semantics as a top-level sighash flag system, = so >> you can spend coins directly with a sighash based on TXHASH semantics. (= I >> dubbed this TXSIGHASH and I recently did some simulations on how such a >> construction would look for fee sponsoring and stacking https:/ / delvin= gbitcoin. >> org/ t/ jit-fees-with-txhash-comparing-options-for-sponsorring-and-stack= ing/ >> 1760 ( >> https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/jit-fees-with-txhash-comparing-options-for-= sponsorring-and-stacking/1760 >> ) ) >>=20 >> * However, this also invites some additional review of possible taproot >> changes (pay-to-tapscript, re-adding parity byte, ..) and will necessari= ly >> take some more time for consideration and design. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> * I strongly believe it would benefit development of new bitcoin use cas= es >> if we would have a simple version of templating and rebindable signature= s >> sooner rather than later. Both BitVM and Ark are fairly recent ideas tha= t >> stand to benefit significantly from such new functionality, but I think >> having them actually available will invite a lot more engagement leading >> to new ideas and new improvements. These are not use case-specific >> changes, but useful general building blocks. >>=20 >> * Both CSFS and CTV are fairly unopinionated opcodes by design, when you >> think of CTV in the sense that it fixes the minimum tx fields to ensure >> txid stability. >>=20 >> * I think there is both enough excitement for this proposal and there >> would be enough future excitement for a TXHASH or CCV addition that I >> don't fear upgrade churn will be a future hurdle. >>=20 >> * Even after possible TXHASH activation, I think there will stay some >> demand for the simpler CTV/TEMPLATEHASH variant. It doesn't just save a >> byte on the wire, but thinking in a txid-stable model is just more >> intuitive. I believe that many advanced use cases will take advantage fr= om >> doing things the TXHASH way (enabling stacking and cheaper fee >> sponsoring), but some developers will always favor the simplicity of txi= d >> stability over the benefits of adding complexity. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The above arguments convinced me that an activation based on CTV and CSF= S >> makes sense today. We have lots of developers waiting to make use of the >> functionality it enables and we can continue development of further >> changes meanwhile. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> That being said, I'm in no way married to the exact details of the >> proposals. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> * I am sympathetic to worries of changing legacy/v0 script. I failed to >> convince myself of any valuable usage for bare CTV. >>=20 >> * I am sympathetic to the consideration of revisiting scriptSig and >> annex-related modifications to the template hash. >>=20 >> * I am sympathetic to the decision to optimize better for the rebindable >> signature use cases, meaning: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> * the idea to swap CTV for a TEMPLATEHASH opcode which adds a 1-byte >> VERIFY for the template use case but saves 33 bytes for the signature us= e >> case >>=20 >> * the addition of an INTERNALKEY opcode, saving an additional 33 bytes f= or >> the rebindable signature use case >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> All of the above changes I think can be decided on with minimal >> bikeshedding and still encompass the same semantics of the original >> proposal. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Best >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Steven >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 6/9/25 12:40, James O'Beirne wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> Good morning, >>>=20 >>> A letter has been published advocating for the final review and >>> activation of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK >>> (BIP-348). >>>=20 >>> The full text of the letter can be found at https:/ / ctv-csfs. com ( >>> https://ctv-csfs.com ). It is >>> reproduced below. >>>=20 >>> --- >>>=20 >>> To the technical bitcoin community, >>>=20 >>> We believe that the best next step for bitcoin would be to activate >>> OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV, BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS, >>> BIP-348). These opcodes enable functionality for a broad set of uses >>> that will allow bitcoin to preserve and expand its role as a scarce, >>> censorship-resistant store of value. >>>=20 >>> While there are a few promising proposals to improve bitcoin at the >>> consensus layer which may someday be deployed, we believe that CTV and >>> CSFS are uniquely well reviewed, simple, and have been proven to be bot= h >>> safe and widely demanded. >>>=20 >>> CTV was first formalized in BIP-119 over 5 years ago. Despite many >>> attempts at refinement or replacement, it has remained the most widely >>> preferred method for enforcing pregenerated transaction sequences using >>> consensus. It unlocks valuable functionality for scaling solutions, >>> vaults, congestion control, non-custodial mining, discreet log >>> contracts, and more. >>>=20 >>> CSFS is a primitive opcode that has been deployed to Blockstream=E2=80= =99s >>> Elements for at least 8 years. It represents no significant >>> computational burden over bitcoin=E2=80=99s most often used opcode, OP_= CHECKSIG. >>> It can be combined with CTV to implement ln-symmetry, a longstanding >>> improvement to Lightning. It also unlocks a variety of other use cases. >>>=20 >>> We respectfully ask Bitcoin Core contributors to prioritize the review >>> and integration of CTV (PR #31989 or similar) and CSFS (PR #32247 or >>> similar) within the next six months. We believe this timeline allows fo= r >>> rigorous final review and activation planning. >>>=20 >>> This request isn't meant to suggest that these contributors dictate the >>> consensus process, but rather it is an acknowledgement that before thes= e >>> opcodes can be activated, they must be implemented in the most widely >>> used bitcoin client. >>>=20 >>> As application and protocol developers, we are convinced of the >>> significant benefits that these changes would bring to end users of >>> bitcoin =E2=80=93 even if only considering their use for layer 1 securi= ty and >>> layer 2 scaling solutions. We are optimistic that given the limited siz= e >>> and scope of these changes in both concept and implementation, they >>> represent a realistic next step in the continuing and important work of >>> preserving bitcoin's unique promise. >>>=20 >>> Signed, >>>=20 >>> Abdel (Starkware) >>> Andrew Poelstra (@apoelstra) >>> Ben Carman (@benthecarman) >>> Ben Kaufman (@ben-kaufman) >>> Brandon Black (@reardencode) >>> Brian Langel (for Five Bells) >>> Buck Perley (@puckberley) >>> Calle (Cashu) >>> Calvin Kim (@kcalvinalvin) >>> Chun Wang (f2pool) >>> Christian Decker (@cdecker) >>> Coinjoined Chris ( Bitsurance. eu ( http://bitsurance.eu/ ) ) >>> Evan Kaloudis (for Zeus) >>> fiatjaf (@fiatjaf) >>> Floppy (@1440000bytes) >>> Gary Krause (@average-gary) >>> Harsha Goli (@arshbot) >>> Hunter Beast (@cryptoquick) >>> Jad Mubaslat (@champbronc2) >>> James O=E2=80=99Beirne (@jamesob) >>> Jameson Lopp (@jlopp) >>> Johan Halseth (@halseth) >>> Luke Childs (@lukechilds) >>> Matt Black (for Atomic Finance) >>> Michael Tidwell (@miketwenty1) >>> Nick Hansen (for Luxor Mining) >>> Nitesh (@nitesh_btc) >>> nvk (@nvk) >>> Owen Kemeys (for Foundation) >>> Paul Sztorc (@psztorc) >>> Portland.HODL (for MARA Pool) >>> Rijndael (@rot13maxi) >>> Rob Hamilton (@rob1ham) >>> Robin Linus (@RobinLinus) >>> Sanket Kanjalkar (@sanket1729) >>> Sean Ryan (Anchorage) >>> Seth for Privacy (for Cake Wallet) >>> Simanta Gautam (Alpen Labs) >>> Steven Roose (@stevenroose) >>> stutxo (@stutxo) >>> Talip (@otaliptus) >>> mononaut (@mononautical) >>> vnprc (@vnprc) >>>=20 >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou= ps >>> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send = an >>> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@ googlegroups. com ( >>> bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com ). >>> To view this discussion visit https:/ / groups. google. com/ d/ msgid/ = bitcoindev/ >>> a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51beeb765163n%40googlegroups. com ( >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51= beeb765163n%40googlegroups.com >>> ). >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s >> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n >> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@ googlegroups. com ( >> bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com ). >> To view this discussion visit https:/ / groups. google. com/ d/ msgid/ b= itcoindev/ >> 035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef4a96320e1%40roose. io ( >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef= 4a96320e1%40roose.io >> ). >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https:/ / groups. google. com/ d/ t= opic/ > bitcoindev/ KJF6A55DPJ8/ unsubscribe ( > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bitcoindev/KJF6A55DPJ8/unsubscribe ). > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bitco= indev+unsubscribe@ > googlegroups. com ( bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com ). > To view this discussion visit https:/ / groups. google. com/ d/ msgid/ bi= tcoindev/ > GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjEdYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IK= btDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9U7Y4%3D%40protonmail. > com ( > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjE= dYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9= U7Y4%3D%40protonmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter > ). > --=20 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 e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= mc0q6r14.59407778-1eb1-4e57-bcf2-c781d6f70b01%40we.are.superhuman.com. --2d92f34e865cc72bc297b6311ecb98ecf980e10cfd31895d77bef81dc204 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
=E2=80=8BIf Bitcoin can be changed through a shouting match= and on the basis of misleading pseudo use cases, it would be a major fuck = up.

ACK

=E2=80=8BBitcoin Core cannot, in my opinion, facilitate setti= ng such a precedent.

ACK

=E2=80=8BI trust we= =C2=A0all=C2=A0both agree it is= inadvisable to change the Bitcoin Core decision process from making softwa= re changes based on objective rough technical consensus toward making softw= are changes based on the subjective intentions of whoever has influence in = the space at the moment.

ACK
=

How could you ever thin= k it be a "suitable next step"? Bitcoin Core contributors spend the= ir days maintaining the existing Bitcoin network, where making it boringly = stable is success.

Many signatories were surprising to see. A= fter speaking with them, they signed not because they lack=C2=A0respect for= core developer's priorities, or take Bitcoin's boring stability fo= r granted (I promise you I do not).

Most people signed because they really had no idea what the n= ext step ought to be, and the pressure for transaction commitments was so m= uch so that a bad option (piling of a sign-on letter) was more optimal than= inaction.

In conversa= tions prior to the letter going out (facilitated=C2=A0by my industry survey= ), I only recieved admonishment of the letter from many of the signatories.= I actually don't know of a single person who considered it as an expli= citly good idea. And still they signed. There's signal in that.

=E2=80=8BIn conclusion, i would like to state i understand the frust= ration of this proposal not making progress and how it led many signatories= to get on board with the letter.

I (and many signatori= es) also understand=C2=A0the frustration the letter had for many folks. We = did not intend to disrespect the important work performed by anyone, nor di= d we intend to disrupt any roadmaps by a railroading of "our agenda"= ;.

Having had the week= end to speak to many ctv+csfs proponents, I've made sure to communicate= this point of view to them. I've also made sure that there is absolute= ly zero substance backing any "threat" but I now understand=C2=A0ea= rlier versions included=C2=A0considerations for an activation client (which= wasn't intended as a threat but I now understand=C2=A0how that could&#= 39;ve come across).

Fo= r better or for worse, the letter happened. It carried many signals, and it= helped me understand how many people really needed this (that hadn't b= een clear before). I'm going to try to make the best out of it, and uti= lize the ctv+csfs=C2=A0feedback that's come come out of it.
<= div class=3D"">
With respect,
Harsha, sometimes known as arshbot

<= /div>

<= /div>

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:34 AM, Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com> wrote:
Steven,

I'd like to first expr= ess my disappointment with the amount of drama this letter has caused.
=20
=20
=20
=
Likewise. As i mentioned earlier i think this bundle of capabili= ties is worth considering for a use case driven soft fork. I felt like, des= pite the lack of substantive work on the proposal, we were finally going so= mewhere in the discussion on extending Bitcoin's scripting capabilities= .

Instead of addressing minor objections to the design= of the operations and working on demonstrating (real) use cases, the champ= ion chose the route of political pressure on the Bitcoin Core project. Sign= atories backed this approach.

In chang= ing Bitcoin, the process matters as much as the outcome. If Bitcoin can be = changed through a shouting match and on the basis of misleading pseudo use = cases, it would be a major fuck up. Likewise if a suboptimal change can be = rammed through without addressing objections and reasonable requests from t= he technical community, by bamboozling industry stakeholders into the false= dichotomy "it's either this or ossification".

Bitcoin Core cannot, in my opinion, fa= cilitate setting such a precedent. Therefore this effort sets us back a lon= g way in getting a consensus change merged there, and on the broader path o= f extending Bitcoin's scripting functionalities

It quite literally merely asks Core contributors to put this proposal on their agenda with some urgency.

=
This is incorrect and misrepresenting the = content of the letter. It specifically asks, i'm quoting "integrati= on of CTV (PR #31989 or similar= )". This is asking Core to merge a pull request implementing a contenti= ous consensus change. And so, not by making the case for it with strong tec= hnical arguments but by presenting signatures from industry stakeholders. I= trust we all both agree it is inadvisable to c= hange the Bitcoin Core decision process from making software changes based = on objective rough technical consensus toward making software changes based= on the subjective intentions of whoever has influence in the space at the = moment.

Given that = only a handful of Core contributors had thus far participated in the conver= sation on the proposal elsewhere

And pressure to merge code for = an obviously controversial consensus change is a great way to make sure not= more of them engage, if lurking at how previous CTV discussions went w= asn't enough.

it seemed like a suitable next step to communicate that we want Core contributors to provide their position within this conversation
<= /div>

How= could you ever think it be a "suitable next step"? Bitcoin Core co= ntributors spend their days maintaining the existing Bitcoin network, where= making it boringly stable is success. Asking the project to merge a conte= ntious consensus change, disregarding conceptual review, is just laughable.= I don't see how piling a sign-on letter on top of this would improve a= nything.

In= conclusion, i would like to state i understand the frustration of this pro= posal not making progress and how it led many signatories to get on board w= ith the letter. I do not ascribe bad intentions to most of them. However th= e effect of this letter has been, as could have been expected, a major setb= ack in making progress on this proposal (or more broadly this bundle of cap= abilities). I am not sure how we bounce back from this, but it necessarily = involves someone standing up and actually doing the work of addressing tech= nical feedback=20 from the community and demonstrating (real) use cases. The way forward must= be by building consensus on the basis of strong objective, technical, argu= ments. Not with a bunch of people stating interest and nobody acting up and= helping the proposal move forward.

Best,
Antoine Poinsot
On Tuesday, June 17th, 2025 at 7:31 AM, Steven Roose <steven@roose.io> wrote:
=20

Hey all


I've been following the discussion and noticed TXHASH= is mentioned a lot. As a signer of the letter and author of the TXHASH proposal, I'd like to chime in with some thoughts.

However, I'd like to first express my disappointment = with the amount of drama this letter has caused. It quite literally merely asks Core contributors to put this proposal on their agenda with some urgency. No threats, no hard words.
Given that only a handful of Core contributors had thus far participated in the conversation on the proposal elsewhere, it seemed like a suitable next step to communicate that we want Core contributors to provide their position within this conversation.
I strongly stand against an approach involving independent activation clients and I think the sentiment of this e-mail aligns with the preference of having Core be involved in any deployment of protocol upgrades.

On the proposal itself. I have heard some mentions of TXH= ASH and why we, as the developer community, wouldn't go straight for TXHASH.

  • I think TXHASH is too far from being ready at this poi= nt:
    • The TXHASH BIP and spec has not had the level of review/engagement that I had hoped for. I'm personally pretty happy with the result, especially since it only has had serious looks from myself and Rearden. But it definitely needs a lot more scrutiny. It's a very opinionated design (I think it's unavoidable for such an opcode), so there is a lot of room for making different and maybe better decisions on many fronts.
    • Once we have the TXHASH semantics, it would be very = valuable to consider also introducing the same semantics as a top-level sighash flag system, so you can spend coins directly with a sighash based on TXHASH semantics. (I dubbed this TXSIGHASH and I recently did some simulations on how such a construction would look for fee sponsoring and stacking https://delvingbitcoi= n.org/t/jit-fees-with-txhash-comparing-options-for-sponso= rring-and-stacking/1760)
    • However, this also invites some additional review of possible taproot changes (pay-to-tapscript, re-adding parity byte, ..) and will necessarily take some more time for consideration and design.
  • I strongly believe it would benefit development of new= bitcoin use cases if we would have a simple version of templating and rebindable signatures sooner rather than later. Both BitVM and Ark are fairly recent ideas that stand to benefit significantly from such new functionality, but I think having them actually available will invite a lot more engagement leading to new ideas and new improvements. These are not use case-specific changes, but useful general building blocks.
  • Both CSFS and CTV are fairly unopinionated opcodes by = design, when you think of CTV in the sense that it fixes the minimum tx fields to ensure txid stability.
  • I think there is both enough excitement for this propo= sal and there would be enough future excitement for a TXHASH or CCV addition that I don't fear upgrade churn will be a future hurdle.
  • Even after possible TXHASH activation, I think there w= ill stay some demand for the simpler CTV/TEMPLATEHASH variant. It doesn'= t just save a byte on the wire, but thinking in a txid-stable model is just more intuitive. I believe that many advanced use cases will take advantage from doing things the TXHASH way (enabling stacking and cheaper fee sponsoring), but some developers will always favor the simplicity of txid stability over the benefits of adding complexity.

The above arguments convinced me that an activation based= on CTV and CSFS makes sense today. We have lots of developers waiting to make use of the functionality it enables and we can continue development of further changes meanwhile.

That being said, I'm in no way married to the exact d= etails of the proposals.

  • I am sympathetic to worries of changing legacy/v0 scri= pt. I failed to convince myself of any valuable usage for bare CTV.
    <= /li>
  • I am sympathetic to the consideration of revisiting sc= riptSig and annex-related modifications to the template hash.
  • I am sympathetic to the decision to optimize better fo= r the rebindable signature use cases, meaning:
    • the idea to swap CTV for a TEMPLATEHASH opcode which= adds a 1-byte VERIFY for the template use case but saves 33 bytes for the signature use case
    • the addition of an INTERNALKEY opcode, saving an add= itional 33 bytes for the rebindable signature use case
All of the above changes I think can be decided on with minimal bikeshedding and still encompass the same semantics of the original proposal.


Best

Steven


On 6/9/25 12:40, James O'Beirne wrot= e:
=20 Good morning,

A letter has been published advocating for the final review and
activation of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK
(BIP-348).

The full text of the letter can be found at https://ctv-csfs.com. It is
reproduced below.

---

To the technical bitcoin community,

We believe that the best next step for bitcoin would be to activate
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV, BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS,
BIP-348). These opcodes enable functionality for a broad set of uses
that will allow bitcoin to preserve and expand its role as a scarce,
censorship-resistant store of value.

While there are a few promising proposals to improve bitcoin at the
consensus layer which may someday be deployed, we believe that CTV and
CSFS are uniquely well reviewed, simple, and have been proven to be both
safe and widely demanded.

CTV was first formalized in BIP-119 over 5 years ago. Despite many attempts at refinement or replacement, it has remained the most widely
preferred method for enforcing pregenerated transaction sequences using
consensus. It unlocks valuable functionality for scaling solutions,
vaults, congestion control, non-custodial mining, discreet log
contracts, and more.

CSFS is a primitive opcode that has been deployed to Blockstream=E2= =80=99s
Elements for at least 8 years. It represents no significant
computational burden over bitcoin=E2=80=99s most often used opcode, OP_CHECKSIG.
It can be combined with CTV to implement ln-symmetry, a longstanding
improvement to Lightning. It also unlocks a variety of other use cases.

We respectfully ask Bitcoin Core contributors to prioritize the review
and integration of CTV (PR #31989 or similar) and CSFS (PR #32247 or
similar) within the next six months. We believe this timeline allows for
rigorous final review and activation planning.

This request isn't meant to suggest that these contributors dictate the
consensus process, but rather it is an acknowledgement that before these
opcodes can be activated, they must be implemented in the most widely
used bitcoin client.

As application and protocol developers, we are convinced of the
significant benefits that these changes would bring to end users of
bitcoin =E2=80=93 even if only considering their use for layer 1 secu= rity and
layer 2 scaling solutions. We are optimistic that given the limited size
and scope of these changes in both concept and implementation, they
represent a realistic next step in the continuing and important work of
preserving bitcoin's unique promise.

Signed,

Abdel (Starkware)
Andrew Poelstra (@apoelstra)
Ben Carman (@benthecarman)
Ben Kaufman (@ben-kaufman)
Brandon Black (@reardencode)
Brian Langel (for Five Bells)
Buck Perley (@puckberley)
Calle (Cashu)
Calvin Kim (@kcalvinalvin)
Chun Wang (f2pool)
Christian Decker (@cdecker)
Coinjoined Chris (Bitsurance.eu)
Evan Kaloudis (for Zeus)
fiatjaf (@fiatjaf)
Floppy (@1440000bytes)
Gary Krause (@average-gary)
Harsha Goli (@arshbot)
Hunter Beast (@cryptoquick)
Jad Mubaslat (@champbronc2)
James O=E2=80=99Beirne (@jamesob)
Jameson Lopp (@jlopp)
Johan Halseth (@halseth)
Luke Childs (@lukechilds)
Matt Black (for Atomic Finance)
Michael Tidwell (@miketwenty1)
Nick Hansen (for Luxor Mining)
Nitesh (@nitesh_btc)
nvk (@nvk)
Owen Kemeys (for Foundation)
Paul Sztorc (@psztorc)
Portland.HODL (for MARA Pool)
Rijndael (@rot13maxi)
Rob Hamilton (@rob1ham)
Robin Linus (@RobinLinus)
Sanket Kanjalkar (@sanket1729)
Sean Ryan (Anchorage)
Seth for Privacy (for Cake Wallet)
Simanta Gautam (Alpen Labs)
Steven Roose (@stevenroose)
stutxo (@stutxo)
Talip (@otaliptus)
mononaut (@mononautical)
vnprc (@vnprc)

--
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 bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51beeb765163n%40googlegroups.com.
=20


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= #34;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.= google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/035f8b9c-9711-4= edb-9d01-bef4a96320e1%40roose.io.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog= le Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com= /d/topic/bitcoindev/KJF6A55DPJ8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/<= wbr/>msgid/bitcoindev/GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjEdYQaJf3ER9gd4= e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9U7Y4%3D%40pro= tonmail.com.

3D"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/m= sgid/bitcoindev/mc0q6r14.59407778-1eb1-4e57-bcf2-c781d6f70b01%40we.are.supe= rhuman.com.
--2d92f34e865cc72bc297b6311ecb98ecf980e10cfd31895d77bef81dc204--