This is a pretty outrageous response and accusation, Nic. You can say you don’t think Blockstream (or Core) is doing enough, or continue to push the urgency for more BIPs and quantum preparedness (which I share your concerns about); but coming out and accusing @adam3us of lying and asking him to dox or list his employees’ names is the height of bad-faith debate tactics. If my response to Google’s recent paper and warnings about a 2029 upgrade deadline was “I don’t believe you are working on it that hard—give me a list of each employee working on your quantum program,” it would be an equally stupid request. (Do you really expect any CEO to list 20 employees’ names to satisfy you?) Especially since Core devs and specifically Blockstream staff in the block size wars have been subject to assassination death bounties, doxing, harassment, spearfishing, targeted hacks, and even in some cases were hospitalized due to Segwit/block size wars bullshit. @Blockstream is far from perfect, but they and @ChaincodeLabs are publishing research and releasing signature schemes. @blksresearch contributed heavily to the design and quantum preparedness improvements that are running right now on the Liquid network. (This isn’t meant to ignore the work of other contributors like @cryptoquick also working on this issue—too many to name.) Twenty people can include applied cryptographers doing pure research, programmers, security ops teams doing testing on Liquid, and net ops security experts. I know for a fact current headcount at Blockstream could easily have room for 20 people working on quantum preparedness. I know you’ve put in time and work on your research, articles, and tracking of Core devs’ comments on quantum. You’ve also deployed capital to support teams like @projecteleven who are trying to be part of the solution. Stuff like this and other comments about firing the Core devs if they don’t respond (which I’ve seen you make) is the same unhelpful bullshit pulled during the NY Agreement or by other attempts to hijack Bitcoin. It does nothing to advance everyone’s common goal of a secure Bitcoin and help prepare for quantum mitigations as soon as it’s safe and responsible to deploy. Consensus takes time, as your own research points out. Is the work you are doing helping towards consensus, or is it making consensus more difficult? Not everyone can do the work of people like @n1ckler, Poelstra, or even ex-Blockstream like @pwuille or @TheBlueMatt. But those of us on the sidelines can help create a less toxic environment for those doing the work. Start working on policy issues related to lost & stolen coins, or things like the viability of proposals like Hourglass. Or even continue raising the warning flag—but please stop the “you’re a liar” if you don’t respond the way I want tactics. Constantly accusing everyone of bad faith is part of the toxicity that makes progress in these situations so hard. Shit like this doesn’t help. Just because @adam3us takes the “patience & planning leads to preparedness” approach that his very learned and well-earned experience in crypto—predating Bitcoin by decades—has taught him doesn’t mean you should start throwing out bullshit accusations. I for one welcome you keeping the warnings coming and making sure the community’s response is commensurate with the threat level you perceive. But this stuff crosses the line into toxic and creates unnecessary hostility for what is sure to be another very contentious, heated set of upgrades and decisions for the community. If we don’t learn to communicate better as members of an open-source project, we risk missing key deadlines and depleting the goodwill of developers (causing churn & talent loss) and confidence in Bitcoin’s ability to respond to threats. CSW already drove some of our most valuable devs underground. I think you are wise enough to not want to contribute to that level of hostility toward people doing the work we all depend on. Be better, Nic.

This is such a stupid fallacious tack double down on. If you’re upset on how your warnings on quantum were received, then discuss that. “Liar liar pants on fire unless you give me proprietary data I have no business asking for” is no way to conduct yourself. I’m happy to hop on the phone (dm me for a signal chat) to try and de escalate and explain this further because despite how things read on X, I’m not trying to make things personal with you and appreciate what you’ve done for Bitcoin. If I said you were a liar about the amount of capital you’ve deployed into bitcoin companies and insist you gave me the names of your LPs, check sizes and names & job descriptions of all employees in your portfolio companies working on bitcoin —- then doubled down and insist your unwillingness to give me data proves you a liar would that be honest? I for one thought some people in the communities response to your essays and warnings were dismissive and wrong. Too much shoot the messenger and not enough introspection about where you might be right. If some Blockstream staff were part of that, well then it’s fair to say “I don’t think you took my post seriously” or even “help me understand what I’m not seeing and what work might e occurring I’m not giving you credit for”. Not “you are a liar” and other non constructive things you’ve said. Especially when they are part of the solution you so loudly claim is needed. They are writing code, they are publishing research. There a 100 other bitcoin companies who have done nothing but you want to direct your attacks on the team and CEO who’s saying yes we take it serious and have lots of resources dedicated to it. Let’s take this offline and see where we can find some common ground because like it or not we are in this boat together and we both want it to stay seaworthy.