I can't help but notice that I have read Greg's email before-- all the way back in 2016. It would have been impossible for him to write a reply to Paul's current email back then... but I also notice that Greg did not indicate that he was copy-pasting until the very end (and even then his aside at the end was sort of not the most clear it could have been I think).
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/11/2017 5:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> [ Note 1: I think it is important to disclose that several of the >> items in this list appear to be more or less quoted out of my own >> blockstream-internal descriptions of things we've been working on in >> Bitcoin. >> A while back Adam Back asked me to publish something which contained >> significant chunks of this document more or less verbatim, [ snip ] > I am not exactly sure what you are insinuating but I encourage you to > clarify it. I believe that's an artifact of a 2016 email. And the rest of it, for that matter. See below. >> and I >> declined saying that I personally disagree with some of his points and >> didn't think that Blockstream attempting to redirect the Bitcoin >> project (esp towards drivechains) was appropriate-- along with my >> (above) views on roadmaps (which I have included here a private email >> thread on the subject). I feel it's important to disclose this, and >> that the document was not otherwise created with the input of project >> contributors (except Luke-Jr, apparently). I wasn't previously aware >> that Adam had been working with Paul on this, had I been I would have >> also encouraged people to be a little more transparent about it. ] > I really don't understand what you are disclosing. That Adam asked you > for feedback on the draft? And then, in the next sentence, that not > enough experts were asked for feedback on the draft? I'm legitimately > confused by this part. > > As I stated, we can remove the drivechain section. But surely you can > appreciate how bizarre your position on roadmaps is. What exactly, did > you intended to create at [1]? Since it is described explicitly as "the > roadmap in Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system", have you been > disagreeing with it's characterization as a 'roadmap' this entire time? > One wonders why you haven't said anything until now. > > [1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/ The vast majority of Greg's email, including all the positiontext on roadmaps was mostly text sent on 2016-11-04 to Adam Back, myself, Wladimir, and others. Some of the other parts aren't, like the part mentioning Blockstream. Here is a commitment to a list of the recipients (for whatever good such a commitment might do): b1e575e15d86a5a5931ea0bc519701df4cc152f020f03cd7912074ce5c36260a - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
