Great idea.

Not sure if this has already happened and what was the result .

But at least a reach out to try to understand the core developers motives.

nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyw8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctvqqs2p23f2lnpnf6n5t2q2qls3u4x2h50rvxnmnjj7697j7p4l2f9p7cgdfygl nostr:nprofile1qyn8wumn8ghj7en5wqhxsctvd9nxz7pwwfmhg6pdv9skx6r9dchxgef0dehhxarjqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzqlty5v973t8744scvg9l8r3sgh2zndg9h95kc3pwhltdkdgxsxj5xp76zf nostr:nprofile1qyw8wumn8ghj7cn4vd4k2apwvdhhyctrd3jjuum0vd5kzmp0qy2hwumn8ghj7cmpwfkx7uedvdjxytn5dacz7qpqy627l5t3pusud7gtkywfgefjy22ldthdgy7kmar0z92tpk2y4zgslmve36 nostr:nprofile1qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsqzpy8tyqmya63rcvstw5z8dvm8w26nfzljjcxs66afgy3e54mv5v2sq95qkr nostr:nprofile1qy8hwumn8ghj7mn2w4khqtndv5hszythwden5te0dehhxarj9ekxzmny9uqzpprrqa5g5z0vzy5k06c9gnnc485gcj84qufv88k5j8ljkmaqrxhgkgzyc0 nostr:nprofile1qyfjqamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsqzpl8hpfzul2qha25p8wd63gm46ufax95lfgnl8h9v84y3zt0k05m7q43ylr nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wsqzqtr9jsrjtwl3p0am754hd3qkqe65gsfxfac860vuc882hpkh8ltlywkpdn nostr:nprofile1qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgnwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxtcqypml2cjr4qjdyftnld64m4fvw0q5npk3tsxfs5fdgh6davywn7re5z7y4hy nostr:nprofile1qqsdmx9tpz6r0y6wyv0l29aesfvwl2wgjcuu9zm9z2vq7z03yv29wtgncaaed nostr:nprofile1qyf8wumn8ghj76nddahhxefwwfhkx6mnqye8wumn8ghj7mrwvf5hguewwpshqetjwdshguewd9hj7mn0wd68ycmvd9jkuap0v9cxjtmkxyhhyetvv9usqg9zmv7jdug83ftm27wmnvlyf4dsdg7nwqry6e8x750z292u966v6gu96zwc nostr:nprofile1qyjhwumn8ghj7ctzvdjx2en8xgcrydpsxycrgv3sx56rqvpw0puh5tmkxyhhwucprfmhxue69uhkvun0vashg6r0dchxummnw3erztnrdaksqgpxy8fp3sy8edl6pj6z4c7yv0uq6q4fp2gua75dugucv0jm2h3zvu7ty9qv nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn99uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsqgzd3a7jpc462m378s282s5nfag2s3df0qd87ygrw97et9wmc8kmn564se08 nostr:nprofile1qqsz97uen332xn6l76xrr40fgyjmqczrl64snfpkkfh75ae0evc0jsqy6gzjd

Hello everybody, since effective and respectful communication between core devs and users seems to be broken, I am attempting to create an organized post that expresses some concerns to which users would like to have answers from core devs. The goal is to engage in the most respectful manner and have answers to specific questions, there is no intention to point fingers or to blame anyone, the goal is to see if core devs have changed their stance on some issues and have cler answers.

Below you will find the draft of the post I would like to publish on delving bitocoin, and I am looking for feedback from you guys:

- how can I better express some of the issues raised and do you agree these are some of the most important issue to which we would like an answer?

- any other issue that you would like to raise or question to ask ?

- any other reference link you can provide to prove what some core devs said?

- anything else you have in mind

Ok so here is the draft and any help is much appreciated:

______________________________________________________

OPEN LETTER TO CORE DEVS (REFLECTIONS FROM THE OP_RETURN SAGA AND PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A WELL-ORGANIZED CHANNEL/LINK BETWEEN DEVS AND USERS)

The goal of this post is to address non-technical aspects which are perhaps not receiving the attention they deserve, as well as to provide a single post where core devs can express coherently their stance on some key questions that a relevant section of users would like to have answers to. There seems to be a large disconnect and lack of productive communication between devs and users which is hurting everybody, and this post attempts to establish a clear and respectful dialogue between the 2 parties. The current state of dialogue in the bitcoin community is “not at its peak”, I think we can all agree that we need to do something to re-establish productive dialogue.

The following are a series of reflections, questions and concerns on which we can hopefully all work together on:

Today, after 4 months from @pandacute post which tried to raise concerns that have not been considered valid at the time of his post (https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/behind-the-op-return-drama/1650=), we can indeed claim that some trust between core devs and users has been broken. This is shown by the fact that today 23% of the nodes run Knots (from less than 1% 4 months ago). 23% is the percentage of people who disagree so much with how the change was handled/communicated that they switched implementation, I believe we should also consider all the other percentage of users that disagree and will show this by not upgrading to new version of core.

I would like to point out that some ppl switched not because they disagree on opening up op_return, but rather because of some behaviours that some core devs displayed, namely:

1) Perceived attempt to force changes on nodes (taking away node configurability)

2) Dismissal of criticisms from non-technical users (insistence from core devs to consider only technical aspects and not incorporate in the discussion also other aspects, by default if you are not a technical person your opinion on this matter is not considered). This hugely curtails dialogue and make users’ opinions feel rejected/not-considered (the surest way to push someone away)

3) Public engagement with users is not seen as important, statements like “if you don’t like what core is doing with the code just don’t run it” do not communicate a willingness to have an open stance for dialogue, listening to criticisms, and mutual confrontation

4) Especially in the last few weeks some core devs have recurred to call to authority to defend their stance, “trust us because we have history of being trustworthy, I would not advise to run the btc implementation run by the person who has not a trustworthy history”. This is perceived as in total opposition to the bitcoin ethos of don’t trust verify.

Could core devs organize together to provide a response to the following questions below? I emphasize “organize together”, a point better elaborated in point “c” below:

a) In light of the developments of the last few months, do core devs still believe that is was the correct decision to take away node configurability in future implementations? Here the question is not technical but rather philosophical, namely: do you believe it is correct to enforce a configuration option that many demanded to keep, even if it is the right technical choice? People would like to know if core still believe this was the correct approach (because if they do, then we have to assume that this modus operandi will be used again in the future).

b) In light of the developments of the last few months, do core devs still believe that it was the correct decision to limit the conversation only to technical aspects and not incorporate also other aspects?

c) Do core devs have a plan or are already organizing themselves to establish a clearer and more organized public engagement? In the situation like the one at hand it seems impossible for users to receive an opinion which represents the majority of core devs. Let me explain better: if some core devs say something, and someone then reference what those individuals said as an expression of core stance, core devs reply is “that is just their personal opinion, they don’t speak for the whole core dev team”. Ok, but if this is the case, then how are users to know what is the coherent/majority stance of the core team? In the 2 video link at the bottom of this post, ppl assume that the core devs attending and speaking are expressing the majority of core team stance, it only makes sense. And if they do not, then this highlight a lack of clear organization for core team to express its dominant viewpoint. A “spoke-person” or a forum that aims to channel and present the majority stance of the core team seems to be necessary, otherwise effective and productive communication between core devs and users is impossible. Many core devs rightly complained they wasted hours addressing users concerns on different forums, platforms, posts. This is a result of not having a single organized point where devs and users can effectively carry out an organized dialogue. I keep saying “organized” because a) the conversations today are scattered all over the place and this results in massive waste of time for everybody, b) there is no single voice/channel that expresses core dominant viewpoint, if every core dev has to constantly explain his viewpoint to all different users then we get the confusion and inefficiency we just had

This is an attempt to re-establish the trust that some users have lost in core and to provide core devs with an opportunity to coherently express their viewpoint on matters/questions which are still unclear.

Reference list for the statements and comments expressed by core devs and included in this post:

https://youtu.be/gbQvU-woY14

https://youtu.be/x-eUUC8Idaw

https://fountain.fm/episode/gniC6BIENiKYYitsSNXX