docs: the objection register - #61

Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged

docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
objection-register

Conversation

@EvanWinget

@EvanWingetEvanWinget commented Aug 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What changed

One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.

The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.

  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.

Sources and policy

Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.

Why now

The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.

Review guide

One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:

  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.

Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.

Merge order

References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.

@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget merged commit 957eba2 into mainAug 23, 2026
2 checks passed
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
docs: the objection register - #61
Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged
docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Conversation
@EvanWinget
@EvanWingetEvanWinget
commented
Aug 23, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Owner
What changed
One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.
The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.
  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.
Sources and policy
Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.
Why now
The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.
Review guide
One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:
  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.
Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.
Merge order
References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.
@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget
merged commit 957eba2
into
mainAug 23, 2026

2 checks passed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs: the objection register - #61
Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged
docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Conversation
@EvanWinget
@EvanWingetEvanWinget
commented
Aug 23, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Owner
What changed
One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.
The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.
  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.
Sources and policy
Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.
Why now
The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.
Review guide
One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:
  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.
Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.
Merge order
References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.
@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget
merged commit 957eba2
into
mainAug 23, 2026

2 checks passed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs: the objection register - #61
Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged
docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Conversation
@EvanWinget
@EvanWingetEvanWinget
commented
Aug 23, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Owner
What changed
One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.
The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.
  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.
Sources and policy
Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.
Why now
The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.
Review guide
One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:
  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.
Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.
Merge order
References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.
@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget
merged commit 957eba2
into
mainAug 23, 2026

2 checks passed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
docs: the objection register - #61
Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged
docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Conversation
@EvanWinget
@EvanWingetEvanWinget
commented
Aug 23, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Owner
What changed
One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.
The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.
  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.
Sources and policy
Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.
Why now
The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.
Review guide
One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:
  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.
Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.
Merge order
References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.
@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget
merged commit 957eba2
into
mainAug 23, 2026

2 checks passed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs: the objection register - #61
Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged
docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Conversation
@EvanWinget
@EvanWingetEvanWinget
commented
Aug 23, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Owner
What changed
One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.
The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.
  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.
Sources and policy
Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.
Why now
The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.
Review guide
One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:
  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.
Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.
Merge order
References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.
@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget
merged commit 957eba2
into
mainAug 23, 2026

2 checks passed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs: the objection register - #61
Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged
docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Conversation
@EvanWinget
@EvanWingetEvanWinget
commented
Aug 23, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Owner
What changed
One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.
The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.
  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.
Sources and policy
Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.
Why now
The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.
Review guide
One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:
  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.
Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.
Merge order
References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.
@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget
merged commit 957eba2
into
mainAug 23, 2026

2 checks passed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
docs: the objection register - #61
Merged
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Aug 23, 2026
Merged
docs: the objection register#61
EvanWinget merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
objection-register
Conversation
@EvanWinget
@EvanWingetEvanWinget
commented
Aug 23, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Owner
What changed
One new document, docs/objection-register.md, plus its entry in docs/README.md. Nothing normative changes: no spec, no implementation, no vectors.
The register lists every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to the conditions architecture in particular, with BitLisp's answer, a status, and where the answer lives (spec section, divergence row, decision number, vector file). Where no answer exists it says so and names the phase that owes one.
  • Section 1, O1 to O10: objections to any expressive VM (reviewability pricing, audit burden, witness-supplied code, static typing, ZK, termination, macros, names, debuggability, activation).
  • Section 2, O11 to O22: objections to the CLVM-derived VM (serialization, peak memory, evaluation order, surplus arguments, softfork semantics, the CLVM defect history, tag domain separation, numbers, BLS, costing, budget commitment, bllsh divergences).
  • Section 3, O23 to O36: objections to the conditions architecture (novel validator, the bundle model, positional identity, evidence contamination, the designers' lean, narrow margins, coin set vs UTXO, direct assertions, ephemeral coins, tokens, cultural headwind, self identity, thin aggregation record, what has been built).
  • Section 4: the OPEN and PARTIAL rows grouped by owing phase. This must agree with the execution plan and is the objection-side view of it.
  • Section 5: four objections no thread has raised, pre-registered so the essay states them first.
Sources and policy
Sourced from the nine public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections 8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already records in section 6, cited only as that document records them. Attributions are to public posts. No private correspondence is quoted or newly characterized.
Why now
The execution plan's Phase 5 item 4 (track objections and revise the evaluation doc against them) has no artifact until hostile review starts. This register is that artifact written ahead of time: the essay's skeleton, and the checklist for the direct exchange with the introspection architecture's author. A conceded objection stated first by the project is worth more than one stated first by a reviewer.
Review guide
One commit. Read docs/objection-register.md top to bottom. The things worth checking:
  1. Every "where" cell points at something that exists on main (or on PR 60 for C24 and decision 28, see merge order below). Spot-check a few against docs/vm-record.md, docs/condition-record.md, spec/VALIDATION.md, and docs/bitcoin-script-successor-evaluation.md.
  2. Every ANSWERED status has a vector or invariant named. If a row claims ANSWERED with only prose behind it, it should be RECORDED.
  3. Section 4 against docs/execution-plan.md Phase 4 and Phase 5 bullets: nothing owed here that the plan does not carry, and nothing the plan carries that the register omits. If the plan needs a skeleton edit to match, that goes direct to main separately per the plan-update rule.
  4. The CONCEDED rows (O4, O10, O25, O26, O31, O33) are the ones the essay will publish as misses. Confirm each is conceded in the evaluation doc already and not newly here.
Verify: ci/lint/lint.sh (prose, whitespace, codespell). No tests are affected.
Merge order
References to C24 and decision 28 (rows O34 and the section 3 preamble) resolve once PR 60 (identity-assert) merges. Merge this after PR 60, or read those two references against that branch.
@EvanWinget
docs: the objection register
b19f86c
Every objection on the public record to a Lisp VM for Bitcoin, or to
the conditions architecture in particular, in one table with
BitLisp's answer, a status (ANSWERED, RECORDED, PARTIAL, OPEN,
CONCEDED), and where the answer lives: the spec section, the
divergence row, the decision, the vector file. Sourced from the nine
public threads read in full on 2026-08-16 (evaluation doc sections
8.4 and 8.5) and the two exchanges the evaluation doc already
records, cited only as it records them. No private correspondence
is quoted.
Three groups: objections to any expressive VM (O1 to O10), to the
CLVM-derived VM (O11 to O22), and to the conditions architecture
(O23 to O36). Section 4 lists the OPEN and PARTIAL rows by the phase
that owes them, the objection-side view of the execution plan.
Section 5 records four objections no thread has raised yet, so the
essay states them first.
This is the skeleton of the Phase 5 essay (execution plan, Phase 5
item 4, track objections) and of the note to the introspection
architecture's author. Nothing normative changes. docs/README.md
gains the entry.
@EvanWinget
EvanWinget
merged commit 957eba2
into
mainAug 23, 2026

2 checks passed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@EvanWinget