Clearing up the confusion: My Hong Kong presentation proposal was NOT accepted
The email below clearly shows it was rejected.
The reason there is a rumor going around that it was also accepted is because conference organizers told me that it was, and that an email to that effect would be forthcoming. As my presentation would include results from several others’ work on Bitcoin Unlimited (BIP101/XT compatible) and related TestNet experiments, some of these people became aware of my proposal’s informal acceptance. My family and friends were also curious regarding my potential trip to Hong Kong, so when I told them what I was told, they believed it was accepted too.
The confusion started when I received an email from conference organizers on Sunday night, requesting that I submit a working paper (I had submitted a two-page abstract as per the instructions). The timing of that request seemed suspicious, as it was the same day that the CTO of Blockstream (a conference organizer) unsubscribed from the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list after the debate between he and I the previous night (on a topic closely related to what I intended to present).
Was everyone else now being asked for full papers on Sunday night--literally one day before we were supposed to hear whether our proposals were accepted? If so, why weren’t full papers asked for up-front? From my personal experience, whenever a group asks "last minute" for "rough work,” obliging has often come back to bite me. E.g., the work leaks and is later used to discredit me for being “sloppy,” or the exercise was designed to get a low-quality submission in the first place so that it could be “logically rejected.”
In further telephone conversations with conference organizers, I learned that my proposal had already been accepted. The problem—and the reason for the email—was that some people were strongly opposed to the ideas I intended to present. To help relieve this group’s concerns, conference organizers suggested that I allow my PowerPoint slides to be reviewed prior to giving my talk. Although this seemed like an odd request for an academic conference, I agreed. I also agreed not to explicitly use the term “governance,” which was somewhat awkward as my talk is partly about the difference between “top-down” versus “bottom-up” control over the evolution of Bitcoin. Nevertheless, I made it clear that I would still promote decentralizing development and the perspective that the block size is an emergent phenomenon (as opposed to a policy tool).
The next morning (Monday) I received another email from conference organizers, thanking me for my submission and requesting another phone call to discuss the upcoming conference. Most of the conversation was about how to best create an environment where I could feel comfortable and safe presenting my research. During this call (Tuesday), I mentioned that I had only been told verbally that my proposal was accepted and had still not received a formal email (it was now one day late). This individual noted that he was not part of the selection committee and that they might have got delayed for some reason.
I then spent an hour writing my application for the $1,500 travel bursary, since it was pretty clear that I was going, and I submitted it. About an hour later, I received the rejection email that you see above.
Perhaps there is more information regarding what happened that I’m not aware of, but that is all I know at the time of writing this post. I hope that this story explains satisfactorily the confusion regarding how my talk could be both accepted and rejected.
Thank you to the Bitcoin community!
I am always amazed at the kindness and generosity of this community, especially when unfortunate events like this happen. I have received an outpouring of support in the form of forum and reddit comments, tweets, emails, private messages, and phone calls. It is very much appreciated!
If I were to make one “call to action” it would be this:
Recognize that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the code we freely choose to run. Consensus is an emergent phenomenon, objectively measurable as the longest persistent chain. Proof of work both enforces and defines the protocol.
Believe that Bitcoin will become a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for all of planet earth. But remember that our success is not guaranteed--bootstrapping a new global monetary system was never going to be easy. Our next step is to decentralize development and return control over the evolution of the network back to the users, back to you.
Promote free and open discussion to allow us to make free and informed choices. I ask that community leaders follow the lead of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and advocate for public discussion forums where ideas are not censored and open discussion is encouraged.
Oh and thank you to those who offered to fly me to Hong Kong anyways! Unfortunately, I am now scheduled to fly into cold Winona Minnesota to perform some EMI experiments around the same time.
Sincerely,
Peter
The email below clearly shows it was rejected.
The reason there is a rumor going around that it was also accepted is because conference organizers told me that it was, and that an email to that effect would be forthcoming. As my presentation would include results from several others’ work on Bitcoin Unlimited (BIP101/XT compatible) and related TestNet experiments, some of these people became aware of my proposal’s informal acceptance. My family and friends were also curious regarding my potential trip to Hong Kong, so when I told them what I was told, they believed it was accepted too.
The confusion started when I received an email from conference organizers on Sunday night, requesting that I submit a working paper (I had submitted a two-page abstract as per the instructions). The timing of that request seemed suspicious, as it was the same day that the CTO of Blockstream (a conference organizer) unsubscribed from the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list after the debate between he and I the previous night (on a topic closely related to what I intended to present).
Was everyone else now being asked for full papers on Sunday night--literally one day before we were supposed to hear whether our proposals were accepted? If so, why weren’t full papers asked for up-front? From my personal experience, whenever a group asks "last minute" for "rough work,” obliging has often come back to bite me. E.g., the work leaks and is later used to discredit me for being “sloppy,” or the exercise was designed to get a low-quality submission in the first place so that it could be “logically rejected.”
In further telephone conversations with conference organizers, I learned that my proposal had already been accepted. The problem—and the reason for the email—was that some people were strongly opposed to the ideas I intended to present. To help relieve this group’s concerns, conference organizers suggested that I allow my PowerPoint slides to be reviewed prior to giving my talk. Although this seemed like an odd request for an academic conference, I agreed. I also agreed not to explicitly use the term “governance,” which was somewhat awkward as my talk is partly about the difference between “top-down” versus “bottom-up” control over the evolution of Bitcoin. Nevertheless, I made it clear that I would still promote decentralizing development and the perspective that the block size is an emergent phenomenon (as opposed to a policy tool).
The next morning (Monday) I received another email from conference organizers, thanking me for my submission and requesting another phone call to discuss the upcoming conference. Most of the conversation was about how to best create an environment where I could feel comfortable and safe presenting my research. During this call (Tuesday), I mentioned that I had only been told verbally that my proposal was accepted and had still not received a formal email (it was now one day late). This individual noted that he was not part of the selection committee and that they might have got delayed for some reason.
I then spent an hour writing my application for the $1,500 travel bursary, since it was pretty clear that I was going, and I submitted it. About an hour later, I received the rejection email that you see above.
Perhaps there is more information regarding what happened that I’m not aware of, but that is all I know at the time of writing this post. I hope that this story explains satisfactorily the confusion regarding how my talk could be both accepted and rejected.
Thank you to the Bitcoin community!
I am always amazed at the kindness and generosity of this community, especially when unfortunate events like this happen. I have received an outpouring of support in the form of forum and reddit comments, tweets, emails, private messages, and phone calls. It is very much appreciated!
If I were to make one “call to action” it would be this:
Recognize that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the code we freely choose to run. Consensus is an emergent phenomenon, objectively measurable as the longest persistent chain. Proof of work both enforces and defines the protocol.
Believe that Bitcoin will become a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for all of planet earth. But remember that our success is not guaranteed--bootstrapping a new global monetary system was never going to be easy. Our next step is to decentralize development and return control over the evolution of the network back to the users, back to you.
Promote free and open discussion to allow us to make free and informed choices. I ask that community leaders follow the lead of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and advocate for public discussion forums where ideas are not censored and open discussion is encouraged.
Oh and thank you to those who offered to fly me to Hong Kong anyways! Unfortunately, I am now scheduled to fly into cold Winona Minnesota to perform some EMI experiments around the same time.
Sincerely,
Peter
Last edited:
