{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ej6vep7y2km5l6awukffelg8yeppkth2vjkjk9jypd5w336rxggs3p9cq8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ej6vep7y2km5l6awukffelg8yeppkth2vjkjk9jypd5w336rxggs3p9cq8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-04-05\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:32:03AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Joseph Poon \u003cjoseph at lightning.network\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e #bitcoin at freenode:\n\u003e \u003e  00:04    gmaxwell| lol poon pretending that he isn't complicit in all this stuff.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Are you *fucking* serious? Is this how you resolve all problems? I'm\n\u003e \u003e taking you seriously and having second thoughts and want to make public\n\u003e \u003e commitments to do the right thing without any evidence and you come out\n\u003e \u003e and say *this*?\n\nApologies to the list.\n\n\u003e I apologize for the glib talk on chat and I hope you understand that\n\u003e the tone in such venues is significantly informal; and that my remark\n\u003e was a causal one among friends which was not intended in a spirit as\n\u003e seriously as you've taken it.\n\nYou're still presuming ill-will. I'm seriously offended. I'm not upset\nwith the glib talk, I'm upset that you think I have ill will.\n\n\u003e That said, two days ago you participated in a highly unusual\n\u003e announcement of a protocol change that-- rather than being sent for\n\u003e community review in any plausible venue for that purpose-- was\n\u003e announced as a done deal in embargoed media announcements.  This\n\u003e proposed protocol change seemed custom tailored to preserve covert\n\u003e boosting, and incorporated direct support for lightning -- and the\n\u003e leading competing theory was that a large miner opposed segwit\n\u003e specifically because they wanted to block lightning. Moreover, I have\n\u003e heard reports I consider reliable that this work was funded by the\n\u003e miner in question.\n\nWe specifically told you guys privately and publicly when asked that it\nwas simply to be able to do it in 2 weeks. Check out the code, it was\nmuch faster to do it that way. The spec wasn't complete and I have\npersonal biases against doing it on the main-chain since it would\nbenefit things if there was smart contract proections on the main chain\nas well, which I figured would be more controversial. I never said\nanything about public commitments to transactions. In fact, I'm pretty\ngood at figuring things out and tend to cargo-cult things (since culture\nis the genetic memory is civlizations), if I saw BIP141/SegWit required\na commitment instead of it being optional, I would've probably thought\nabout it. Why wasn't this required as part of SegWit? BIP141 is still\nvulnerable. Why did you pull this out just now? I'm totally blindsided\nhere, hence my earlier reply of wanting to resolve it in the Extension\nBlock proposal.\n\n\u003e In the time since, when people asked for revisions to the proposal to\n\u003e not block segwit they received responses from the Bcoin account on\n\u003e twitter that \"there would be no amendments\", and I was sent leaked\n\u003e chatlogs of you making considerably hostile statements, claiming that\n\u003e if your extension block proposal is \"a litmus test for corruption\",\n\u003e and claimed (before AFAIK anyone had had a chance to comment on it)\n\u003e that the Bitcoin project contributors opposed it for \"nonsense\n\u003e reasons\".\n\nI never participated in that, and the specific announcement here\nindicates that changes will be happening. The intention was to get it\nout as a draft and *working* demo code.\n\nhttps://medium.com/purse-essays/ready-for-liftoff-a5533f4de0b6\n\nThat was specifically after Core developers accused me of publicly\nacting in poor form without any understanding of the situation. I was\nespecially annoyed because all of you are acting with similar secrecy,\neven worse, there is specific organization by Core which the public is\nnot aware of. Think about it from my perspective, you all blocked me out\nintentionally for months and then accuse me of going to journalists for\na couple hours before? I'm seriously hurt.\n\n\u003e It is with this in mind that when you tried to pull me into an off the\n\u003e record conversation that I responded stating:\n\u003e \n\u003e \"[...] I am disinclined to communicate with you except in email where I can\n\u003e get third party transferable proof of our communication.  I'm\n\u003e concerned that you may now be involved in a conspiracy which I do not\n\u003e want to be implicated in myself.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is my estimation that, for that above reason, it would be in my\n\u003e best interest to not communicate with you at all.  But in all your\n\u003e prior interactions you appeared to have integrity and sense, so out of\n\u003e respect for that history I'm willing to communicate with you, but only\n\u003e in public or in email where my end is on gmail.\"\n\nNice you cut out the beginning which explains on *why* I didn't reply:\n\n\"with an embargoed press release in Forbes.\n\nThat's how you roll now, right? :-/\"\n\nWhy didn't you include your entire message?\n\nThat was in reply to my initial message reaching out to you and Adam\nBack:\n\"Hi, would you like a phone call tomorrow?\n\nI am in Thailand right now, I understand if what I did is upsetting, my\ngoal was not to upset you.\n\nI deeply respect you both technically, but I do believe what I am doing\nis right. If you could find a way, I would be extremely grateful if we\ncould chat sometime.\"\n\nReplying with a beginning like that with that kind of hostility means I\nsort of don't know how to reply! Further, you didn't express any real\nconcerns to me. I just figured you were mad and wanted to give you time\nto cool off. Calling someone up is a way to explain over a higher\nbandwidth medium gives material reiteration of a real honest heartfelt\napology in misunderstanding.\n\n\u003e This was two days ago and you did not respond further.\n\u003e \n\u003e With that in mind I hope you do not find some casual crap-talking on\n\u003e chat to be especially surprising.\n\u003e \n\u003e I understand that you didn't intend for the initial message to be\n\u003e posted in public, so I'm sorry for continuing the thread here-- but I\n\u003e thought it was useful for people to understand the context behind that\n\u003e glib remark: Including the point that I do not know for a fact that\n\u003e you are complicit in anything, but I consider your recent actions to\n\u003e be highly concerning.\n\nI'm only including more details in the email because you had deceptive\nframing. I normally would *never* include contents in a private email\nmessage and believe this is already the gray area. I already feel\nuncomfortable publishing my message to you without permission, but I\nfeel it's necessary context, but I will not continue. Would you like to\nhave a public call instead? I really want to talk to you to express that\nI really mean what's best for bitcoin. I've had a sleepless night\nthinking about these things, this type of drama is *NOT* good for\nbitcoin.\n\nI came here with good intent, even with Core and Blockstream being\noutright hostile and controlling with many personal problems over the\nyears which I have never aired previously. I can tell when I'm not\nwelcome. I'm going to take a break from all of this.\n\n-- \nJoseph Poon"}