rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 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.