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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9C5318F4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f193.google.com (mail-io0-f193.google.com
[209.85.223.193])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B91BF0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iow1 with SMTP id 1so15525180iow.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=RkIS9IjiRRFkOJkrvWXdCwetW1SpiGXYoXa3TttjyY0=;
b=nx0GZhx/langbwP2oIJ8MGJMFN+jZgJ6Uf39AIxcLcBZjV3QKoAqlzFDnRLbiLUR89
DaRgC1NPNWAwqxAOija5lShMVQvPYs0LTVd+LRep765XFhyiEeAGRmhB5ATedPps7I+O
4oK3h2HI3y/0LtNf5ck7ggEA/XBTmRCtHCknRA3HUeXjc9PqrAMNL6a3M1+M2bQrt8Nf
f9kZkWxXFOVcqGwNm/WYugPA2+PrIwtCZp6gJawoh+qVXNshT84n78sq+SE1gSn/vo/x
fVmhjN31P0zGWRRTIr1YjmiS0bGR8wWRJ0dj+M2mckNifTAa9L+ntPZBHEoZ1bK+CUkV
KtyQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.13.75 with SMTP id 72mr28667053ion.75.1444068288783;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 18:04:49 -0000
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.
|
