CoinDesk reported on the saga of Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr’s proposal to amend open-source software to a degree that would have severely curtailed data-oriented applications such as Ordinals Inscriptions, sometimes referred to by the term “NFTs for Bitcoin.”

Ava Chow, a Blockstream Developer who is a maintainer for the popular Bitcoin Core Software – imagine the position as a High Priest or Priestess – abruptly closed off discussion on the GitHub platform.

Before the publication of this article, we sent Chow several questions.

Chow then replied to us by email with a very detailed response. She asked: “If you want to quote anything from this, please use it in its entirety and context.”

We don’t always have the space to publish such responses, so we try to condense them for our readers.

We’re making an Exception in this case – as the issue goes to the core of the governance of Bitcoin’s blockchain and the question that was raised by our original article. Who decides which transactions should be included on the $900 billion blockchain?

All new bitcoin ETFs investors may need to ask themselves this question at some point.

Chow has provided us with her verbatim answers to our questions about her decision to close a proposal. This is technically called a “pull-request” or PR.


We wondered if you could comment on the reason you closed this pull request.

Chow: I stated in my comment when I closed the PR that it was obvious to me that the PR was controversial and there were no chances of a consensus being reached. Close PRs which are unlikely to reach a (rough) consensus on merging.

The PR was also locked, as it was only generating noise. Bitcoin Core relies on GitHub to collaborate with developers and for code. They disrupt the developers when they make a bold statement on Twitter that angers others, then encourage them to post comments on GitHub. The comments are often filled with accusations of bad faith and poorly informed statements regarding the code. They also demand that the developers make major changes. This causes the developers to get into heated arguments to defend themselves or correct misconceptions. There were commenters on both sides of the issue, so they had discussions without involving developers, but sent out a notification. This has a negative impact on productivity and creates a toxic work environment. It also drives developers away from their workplace.


Was this a decision you took independently or did it follow discussions behind the scenes with other Bitcoin Core contributors/maintainers?

Chow: I made the decision to close that account at that time. It was done after reading review comments from several long time contributors that NACKed the PR, and suggested that it be closed. These comments were technical criticisms which concluded that the PR was a bad idea in its current form and could be harmful.