Watched the whole thing. There's a lot I could address, but I'll keep to the problem of CBME consensus. I share and admire the conviction of the one-year camp, but when asked why six months wouldn't be enough to deter short-term hashers, I couldn't provide a compelling answer. Frankly, I still haven't heard one. The reason why is because there isn't enough data to effectively argue the case. Meanwhile, I've heard credible concerns about the collateral damage a one-year CBM could cause to honest miners, while they would be okay with six months. Our goal is to deter short-term hashers and encourage them to sell their rigs, not maximize punishment. More deterrence isn't necessarily better if it comes at a disproportionate cost to honest miners. There's a balance to strike, and based on the feedback I've heard, one year may overshoot it. We can't know for certain whether six months is sufficient, but neither can we demonstrate that one year would produce meaningfully better outcomes. Given that uncertainty, I can't justify insisting on one year at the expense of broader consensus when six months offers a reasonable chance of achieving our goals with less potential collateral damage. We have many forks in the road ahead of us, and this is only one of many battles. We will have a chance to revisit it at the conclusion of RDTS, and this time we'll be armed with data.

The CBM extension debate is narrowing in on a single question. Which way, my fellow plebs?