MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzvMLTu8pmOVVJfg5xUWHMWiAcAUJXig2B=qX9Oimu+vGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQhWSLSZgNr9rUQ6-iamnh0ZsHdXui59e7xmTa94zYhpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Monday 5. October 2015 18.03.05 Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by
>> Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial. His
>> arguments have  been refuted.
>
> Unsuccessfully.

I think rather successfully. That Mike himself continues to misexplain
things is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his
motivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his
blocksize hardfork on people. Since this motivation is uncorrelated
with any property of soft-forks or CLTV we should not expect his
position to change.

> The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and sticks
> to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason why
> bigger blocks were blocked for years.

You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your
complaint up with him-- not the list.