CTV + CSFS: a letter

The discussions among programmers working on Core, including Matt Corallo, Anthony Towns, and James O'Beirne, highlight several critical points regarding the development and engagement challenges within the Bitcoin Core project. The conversation elucidates the considerable effort that has gone into refactoring the project into multiple libraries, rewriting the logic behind the RPC interface and help text, and upgrading to new C++ versions. Despite these advancements, practical applications such as mining from a local node require external forks and additional daemons, indicating a gap between development work and user-centric features.

The dialogue further explores the dichotomy between critical infrastructure work—such as transaction relay improvements, descriptor wallets, and mempool unification—and its visibility to the ordinary user. Although some developments like TRUC alter network relay behavior, they remain abstract to the general user base. This situation is partly due to the developers' reluctance to engage in public debates and optimizations that could lead to negative social media attention and funded disinformation campaigns. The consensus changes within the project necessitate broad public engagement, contrasting with the more technical or infrastructural improvements that have been the focus.

Contributing to Bitcoin Core poses its own set of challenges, as highlighted by the difficulty in obtaining reviews, the slow review process, and the need for continuous rebase over codebase changes. These barriers contribute to the difficulty of onboarding new contributors who are interested in more visible improvements. The lack of private communication channels for discussing potential contributions exacerbates this issue, as Core does not benefit from the privacy afforded to other open-source projects through platforms like GitHub.

Andrew Poelstra's reflections underscore the incentive problems hindering significant changes within the Bitcoin Core project. He mentions the logistical challenges of finding appropriate mediums for non-public discussion and the personal deliberations over signing an open letter, which aims to address these incentive issues by fostering conversation about Core's role in the ecosystem. Poelstra's concerns about potentially sparking flamewars or increasing pressure through his involvement in the letter, given his proximity to Core development and the letter's technical demands (CTV + CSFS), reflect the delicate balance between advocating for change and maintaining harmony within the development community. His stance against participating in a consensus-changing fork of Core, barring extreme circumstances, underscores the commitment to cautious and respectful evolution within the project. The inclusion of contact information and affiliations adds a formal touch to the discourse, emphasizing the professional and engaged nature of the contributors to this ongoing conversation.