Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-04-05 📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-04-05
📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Joseph Poon <joseph at lightning.network> wrote:
> #bitcoin at freenode:
> 00:04 gmaxwell| lol poon pretending that he isn't complicit in all this stuff.
>
> Are you *fucking* serious? Is this how you resolve all problems? I'm
> taking you seriously and having second thoughts and want to make public
> commitments to do the right thing without any evidence and you come out
> and say *this*?
I apologize for the glib talk on chat and I hope you understand that
the tone in such venues is significantly informal; and that my remark
was a causal one among friends which was not intended in a spirit as
seriously as you've taken it.
That said, two days ago you participated in a highly unusual
announcement of a protocol change that-- rather than being sent for
community review in any plausible venue for that purpose-- was
announced as a done deal in embargoed media announcements. This
proposed protocol change seemed custom tailored to preserve covert
boosting, and incorporated direct support for lightning -- and the
leading competing theory was that a large miner opposed segwit
specifically because they wanted to block lightning. Moreover, I have
heard reports I consider reliable that this work was funded by the
miner in question.
In the time since, when people asked for revisions to the proposal to
not block segwit they received responses from the Bcoin account on
twitter that "there would be no amendments", and I was sent leaked
chatlogs of you making considerably hostile statements, claiming that
if your extension block proposal is "a litmus test for corruption",
and claimed (before AFAIK anyone had had a chance to comment on it)
that the Bitcoin project contributors opposed it for "nonsense
reasons".
It is with this in mind that when you tried to pull me into an off the
record conversation that I responded stating:
"[...] I am disinclined to communicate with you except in email where I can
get third party transferable proof of our communication. I'm
concerned that you may now be involved in a conspiracy which I do not
want to be implicated in myself.
It is my estimation that, for that above reason, it would be in my
best interest to not communicate with you at all. But in all your
prior interactions you appeared to have integrity and sense, so out of
respect for that history I'm willing to communicate with you, but only
in public or in email where my end is on gmail."
This was two days ago and you did not respond further.
With that in mind I hope you do not find some casual crap-talking on
chat to be especially surprising.
I understand that you didn't intend for the initial message to be
posted in public, so I'm sorry for continuing the thread here-- but I
thought it was useful for people to understand the context behind that
glib remark: Including the point that I do not know for a fact that
you are complicit in anything, but I consider your recent actions to
be highly concerning.
📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Joseph Poon <joseph at lightning.network> wrote:
> #bitcoin at freenode:
> 00:04 gmaxwell| lol poon pretending that he isn't complicit in all this stuff.
>
> Are you *fucking* serious? Is this how you resolve all problems? I'm
> taking you seriously and having second thoughts and want to make public
> commitments to do the right thing without any evidence and you come out
> and say *this*?
I apologize for the glib talk on chat and I hope you understand that
the tone in such venues is significantly informal; and that my remark
was a causal one among friends which was not intended in a spirit as
seriously as you've taken it.
That said, two days ago you participated in a highly unusual
announcement of a protocol change that-- rather than being sent for
community review in any plausible venue for that purpose-- was
announced as a done deal in embargoed media announcements. This
proposed protocol change seemed custom tailored to preserve covert
boosting, and incorporated direct support for lightning -- and the
leading competing theory was that a large miner opposed segwit
specifically because they wanted to block lightning. Moreover, I have
heard reports I consider reliable that this work was funded by the
miner in question.
In the time since, when people asked for revisions to the proposal to
not block segwit they received responses from the Bcoin account on
twitter that "there would be no amendments", and I was sent leaked
chatlogs of you making considerably hostile statements, claiming that
if your extension block proposal is "a litmus test for corruption",
and claimed (before AFAIK anyone had had a chance to comment on it)
that the Bitcoin project contributors opposed it for "nonsense
reasons".
It is with this in mind that when you tried to pull me into an off the
record conversation that I responded stating:
"[...] I am disinclined to communicate with you except in email where I can
get third party transferable proof of our communication. I'm
concerned that you may now be involved in a conspiracy which I do not
want to be implicated in myself.
It is my estimation that, for that above reason, it would be in my
best interest to not communicate with you at all. But in all your
prior interactions you appeared to have integrity and sense, so out of
respect for that history I'm willing to communicate with you, but only
in public or in email where my end is on gmail."
This was two days ago and you did not respond further.
With that in mind I hope you do not find some casual crap-talking on
chat to be especially surprising.
I understand that you didn't intend for the initial message to be
posted in public, so I'm sorry for continuing the thread here-- but I
thought it was useful for people to understand the context behind that
glib remark: Including the point that I do not know for a fact that
you are complicit in anything, but I consider your recent actions to
be highly concerning.