CTV + CSFS: a letter

The discourse centers around the challenges and controversies involved in proposing and integrating changes into Bitcoin's core functionalities, specifically focusing on the extension of Bitcoin's scripting capabilities and the introduction of contentious consensus changes. The discussion highlights a fundamental disagreement on the approach to modifying Bitcoin's codebase, emphasizing the importance of a process grounded in technical consensus rather than political pressure or the influence of industry stakeholders.

The email points out a significant issue with the manner in which changes to Bitcoin are proposed and debated. It critiques the reliance on political pressure and misleading representations of use cases as a strategy for advocating for changes within the Bitcoin Core project. This approach is contrasted with the more traditional method of seeking consensus based on sound technical arguments and addressing the community's objections and concerns comprehensively. The sender expresses concern that if Bitcoin's modification process succumbs to external pressures without thorough technical vetting, it could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to suboptimal or controversial changes being implemented without proper scrutiny.

A specific example cited in the discourse is the proposal to integrate CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) through a pull request (PR 31989), which has been a subject of contention within the community. The criticism revolves around the attempt to push this change without adequately making a case for it through robust technical discussions, instead relying on signatures from industry stakeholders to exert pressure on the decision-making process. This situation is highlighted as an illustration of the broader problem of how contentious changes are proposed and handled within the Bitcoin development ecosystem.

Moreover, the email touches upon the adverse effects of such approaches on the overall progress of enhancing Bitcoin's scripting functionalities. It underscores the setback caused by the contentious nature of these discussions and the reliance on non-technical means to push for changes. The sender advocates for a return to a consensus-building process that is firmly rooted in objective, technical arguments rather than subjective influences or underdeveloped proposals.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the frustrations that come with slow progress on certain proposals, the correspondence calls for a renewed focus on addressing technical feedback, demonstrating real-world use cases, and fostering a genuine consensus among the technical community. This path forward is seen as essential not only for the specific case of extending scripting capabilities but also for the health and integrity of the Bitcoin Core project as a whole.