CTV + CSFS: a letter

The discourse initiates with a critique of the perceived urgency surrounding Bitcoin development, particularly the implementation of soft forks, which is deemed as "reckless" when constrained to a six-month deadline. This introduces the core issue: the debate over the timeline and process for activating soft forks within the Bitcoin community. To address this, a proposition is made to create a new classification system where developers and contributors can categorize their views on how soft fork implementation should be approached.

The proposed categorization divides opinions into three distinct groups. The first group believes in a conservative approach to soft forks, suggesting that each should undergo a lengthy process of over five years before activation, advocating for sequential activation rather than concurrent ones, emphasizing the need for consensus and treating soft forks as significant events distinct from regular pull requests. This perspective reflects a cautious stance towards changes in the protocol, prioritizing extensive deliberation and agreement.

Contrastingly, the second group advocates for a return to the more fluid and dynamic approach to Bitcoin development that existed prior to the controversies around SegWit (Segregated Witness). This faction supports the idea of activating multiple soft forks simultaneously without the necessity for broad consensus, as long as the changes meet the quality standards of other pull requests. They argue that certain types of soft forks, notably [OP NOP / OP Success]-style forks, are safe, reversible, and can be ignored if so chosen. Furthermore, they propose considering new opcodes as experimental for the first year, allowing for their deactivation if deemed necessary, thereby giving users the choice to engage with these features at their own risk.

The third category includes those who abstain from taking a clear stance on the matter, criticized for wanting the benefits of both approaches without committing to a specific direction for Bitcoin's development. This indecision is portrayed as a hindrance to progress, effectively shackling Bitcoin to a slow and cumbersome process for implementing soft forks, driven by excessive caution and the desire to avoid controversy.

In conclusion, the email from Paul raises fundamental questions about the future direction of Bitcoin development, specifically regarding how soft forks should be managed. It calls for clarity and decisiveness among the community, urging members to consider the implications of their preferred approaches and to contribute to a structured debate on the matter. This initiative aims to foster a more coherent and efficient pathway for evolving the Bitcoin protocol, balancing innovation with safety and user autonomy.