MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:35:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztrk+EQ7+eBzE1K6SZTJBfbSfj3Ji34HWDkX3H_X4MzWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
 technical debate
Precedence: list

--f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other than me
> have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other desirable
> properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big question mark over soft
> forks.
>

No, that is not correct and you are distorting facts to fit your argument.
We have discussed the tradeoffs of each method in general, but that does
not make hard forks or soft forks controversial in an of itself.

There is technical consensus to roll out CLTV by ISM, and if somehow you
are right, it will come out during deployment in much the same way as your
recent attempt at rolling out a controversial hardfork.

--f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>CLTV deployment is clearly contr=
oversial. Many developers other than me have noted that hard forks are clea=
ner, and have other desirable properties. I&#39;m not the only one who sees=
 a big question mark over soft forks.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>No, that is not correct and you are distorting facts to fit your arg=
ument. We have discussed the tradeoffs of each method in general, but that =
does not make hard forks or soft forks controversial in an of itself.</div>=
<div>=C2=A0</div><div>There is technical consensus to roll out CLTV by ISM,=
 and if somehow you are right, it will come out during deployment in much t=
he same way as your recent attempt at rolling out a controversial hardfork.=
=C2=A0<br></div><div>=C2=A0<br></div></div><br></div></div>

--f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e--