path: root/89/cdf7453296c8a6f6ede06f4b08a1c5b853127c

Return-Path: <joseph@lightning.network>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DB1098C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  6 Apr 2017 02:08:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pg0-f48.google.com (mail-pg0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E479A17F
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  6 Apr 2017 02:08:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g2so21106934pge.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=lightning.network; s=google;
	h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
	:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
	bh=qmapA2kAxRZ9cUJNdZiAuow8/rdSeZOlLHonxrEDOo0=;
	b=Qy8kB1k9d70ez/dllMn8VDhl1xEDihmBVtjkXAE9zL7Z8GRZeG+XlNj3nUHJey96dD
	2vYPKeTV7iRx/1HTunMNmnA6c9nBGOkR8e6/YcWhFPhOCBN+TnF/T5FByOWpeBxm/mMu
	XbHtKqnCvcLXgZHu+XlPAu7z03qtVMiBALlJY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
	:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
	bh=qmapA2kAxRZ9cUJNdZiAuow8/rdSeZOlLHonxrEDOo0=;
	b=gSFUtzrnPLNzlD/fD3DPwcifR5JWfHyc9SNgWZ5j7nyDp0+llAjWFrLuIEqB84Nu9e
	i7dhIdkd+XGO84uIUeH849gJbPdvbwnFdJLKStGCBDfg532PU0AFm8DsrrepYaYtc4ZK
	jG5547TbqDHgmEg6jnXWJG19alc6sYNmlxVBNvJ73rVeRFJhs2o/ViSmAhq8tKXqPvlm
	pixOHri0/8Fr0qYPbEro63mpYtD6tjIM8X9pvMwx8DO4MhWcRP3WKJYu0SgFmC/KRVXi
	6vejUr2PxloILHubJMkv2s88WPIdP/eUv8efhVQSWKOUsYhILh5kqKPcn8NFrc/NG7uH
	aPxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1sZjwWMOe1BJdUmuaqwTqaM5MT5753y5yPAoYQtY+9PgVGCikaXYeJyUsubaxazg==
X-Received: by 10.99.114.25 with SMTP id n25mr33121074pgc.206.1491444519367;
	Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([205.185.122.187])
	by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r17sm168851pfa.13.2017.04.05.19.08.37
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:09:49 -0700
From: Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Message-ID: <20170406020949.GA28128@lightning.network>
References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1491433518.2765667.935644008.2B153D86@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CAAS2fgS9dOxJDU0WU87aSJhvYbYu60kVnO6acE0G7QJFw4AQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170406003900.GB8379@lightning.network>
	<CAAS2fgQoyXSYbA-kXMrdZduxU_Lu=h7hVfW1nkA--LscGXmVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQoyXSYbA-kXMrdZduxU_Lu=h7hVfW1nkA--LscGXmVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
 Bitcoin POW function
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 02:08:40 -0000

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:32:03AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network> wrote:
> > #bitcoin@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*?

Apologies to the list.

> 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.

You're still presuming ill-will. I'm seriously offended. I'm not upset
with the glib talk, I'm upset that you think I have ill will.

> 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.

We specifically told you guys privately and publicly when asked that it
was simply to be able to do it in 2 weeks. Check out the code, it was
much faster to do it that way. The spec wasn't complete and I have
personal biases against doing it on the main-chain since it would
benefit things if there was smart contract proections on the main chain
as well, which I figured would be more controversial. I never said
anything about public commitments to transactions. In fact, I'm pretty
good at figuring things out and tend to cargo-cult things (since culture
is the genetic memory is civlizations), if I saw BIP141/SegWit required
a commitment instead of it being optional, I would've probably thought
about it. Why wasn't this required as part of SegWit? BIP141 is still
vulnerable. Why did you pull this out just now? I'm totally blindsided
here, hence my earlier reply of wanting to resolve it in the Extension
Block proposal.

> 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".

I never participated in that, and the specific announcement here
indicates that changes will be happening. The intention was to get it
out as a draft and *working* demo code.

https://medium.com/purse-essays/ready-for-liftoff-a5533f4de0b6

That was specifically after Core developers accused me of publicly
acting in poor form without any understanding of the situation. I was
especially annoyed because all of you are acting with similar secrecy,
even worse, there is specific organization by Core which the public is
not aware of. Think about it from my perspective, you all blocked me out
intentionally for months and then accuse me of going to journalists for
a couple hours before? I'm seriously hurt.

> 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."

Nice you cut out the beginning which explains on *why* I didn't reply:

"with an embargoed press release in Forbes.

That's how you roll now, right? :-/"

Why didn't you include your entire message?

That was in reply to my initial message reaching out to you and Adam
Back:
"Hi, would you like a phone call tomorrow?

I am in Thailand right now, I understand if what I did is upsetting, my
goal was not to upset you.

I deeply respect you both technically, but I do believe what I am doing
is right. If you could find a way, I would be extremely grateful if we
could chat sometime."

Replying with a beginning like that with that kind of hostility means I
sort of don't know how to reply! Further, you didn't express any real
concerns to me. I just figured you were mad and wanted to give you time
to cool off. Calling someone up is a way to explain over a higher
bandwidth medium gives material reiteration of a real honest heartfelt
apology in misunderstanding.

> 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.

I'm only including more details in the email because you had deceptive
framing. I normally would *never* include contents in a private email
message and believe this is already the gray area. I already feel
uncomfortable publishing my message to you without permission, but I
feel it's necessary context, but I will not continue. Would you like to
have a public call instead? I really want to talk to you to express that
I really mean what's best for bitcoin. I've had a sleepless night
thinking about these things, this type of drama is *NOT* good for
bitcoin.

I came here with good intent, even with Core and Blockstream being
outright hostile and controlling with many personal problems over the
years which I have never aired previously. I can tell when I'm not
welcome. I'm going to take a break from all of this.

-- 
Joseph Poon