-
@ Volker
2025-06-09 21:58:49
An example of just how different the tone is among protocol devs relative to that of X activists. Latest mail from Antoine Poinsot, re James O'Beirne's proposal to urgently go forward with CTV+CSFS:
James, cosigners,
I am sympathetic to the idea of a CTV+CSFS soft fork, mainly for its flagship use case: LN-Symmetry.
However i think it is premature to call for a "final review and activation" of these opcodes when
there is still:
- disagreement between Bitcoin protocol developers/researchers that it is the way to go for enabling
more expressive scripting capabilities in Bitcoin[^0];
- disagreement between Bitcoin developers on how the functionality of at least one of the proposed
opcodes should be achieved[^1];
- no review after three months, from any of the champions or signers of this letter, on the PR for
integrating one of the two proposed opcodes to the test network[^2].
The flagship use case of the proposal has also not been properly demonstrated. As a point of
comparison Greg Sanders provided motivation for `ANYPREVOUT`, a soft fork that no one even called
to be "finally reviewed and activated", by publishing a detailed proof of concept of LN-Symmetry
(with full specification as a BOLT draft + an implementation in one of the major Lightning clients).
A comprehensive exploration gives confidence a use case is actually realistic in practice. Of course
it's not necessary to go to such lengths just to demonstrate it to be *possible*, but it is
reasonable to expect a champion to have something to show if they are calling for changing Bitcoin.
Fortunately i hear some have taken upon themselves to further explore LN-Symmetry and multiparty
channels using CTV+CSFS, which could provide tangible motivation for the soft fork. Let's see what
they come up with.
Finally, it seems the post contains a built-in assumption that Bitcoin Core contributors are
detached from the research in more expressive scripting capabilities. It is incorrect. A number of
individuals have been involved both with Bitcoin Core development and Bitcoin protocol research,
with substantial contributions in both areas.
Therefore it seems the stalling state of the CTV+CSFS proposal is not due to apathy as this open
letter would lead to believe, but controversy on the content of the proposal among Bitcoin protocol
developers as well as a lack of involvement from the part of champions in reaching consensus.
In these conditions calling for an impending change to Bitcoin's consensus rules seems unadvisable,
and the urgency with a six months deadline is nothing short of reckless.
I remain confident we can make progress toward enabling more expressive scripting capabilities in
Bitcoin. The path forward is by building consensus on the basis of strong technical arguments, and
the politics of pushing for the premature activation of a consensus change are working against it.
Best,
Antoine Poinsot
[^0]: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ctv-csfs-can-we-reach-consensus-on-a-first-step-towards-covenants/1509/14
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/6f78b702-4bd0-4aa4-ac51-b881d8df9f01@mattcorallo.com
[^1]: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ctv-csfs-can-we-reach-consensus-on-a-first-step-towards-covenants/1509/58
[^2]: https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/pull/72
[^3]: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ln-symmetry-project-recap/359