1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7D11AB1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:29:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 675FE1D4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:29:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EFDF615F8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:29:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:26:12 +0100
Message-ID: <2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzvMLTu8pmOVVJfg5xUWHMWiAcAUJXig2B=qX9Oimu+vGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvMLTu8pmOVVJfg5xUWHMWiAcAUJXig2B=qX9Oimu+vGw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
technical debate
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:29:13 -0000
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 th=
at by
> Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial.=
His
> arguments have been refuted.
Unsuccessfully.
> Simply making a noise does not make something controversial. When it =
is
> controversial, it is obvious and plain to see.
I think its plain to see the soft fork is controversial.
But that=E2=80=99s not the point.
The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and=
sticks=20
to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason=
why=20
bigger blocks were blocked for years.
History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't =
work,=20
and this argument has been made to Core.=20
Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike =
was=20
really passionate about.
Today this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about.
I think today is the day that everyone should agree that the past is th=
e past=20
and we all learned our lesson and Bitcoin Core will make decisions a di=
fferent=20
way.
|
