Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: naama.kates@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <561412D9.3050603@mail.bihthai.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:34:39 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9C7B3D81-76FC-4893-8166-A184C1614D31@gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com>
	<561411A5.4020905@mail.bihthai.net>
	<561412D9.3050603@mail.bihthai.net>
To: "venzen@mail.bihthai.net" <venzen@mail.bihthai.net>
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

Hey all, nice to meet you... I'm new to the community and thus, after taking=
 that first step of signing up, have been reading/scanning these threads ove=
r the last few days without contributing my own two =C2=A2-- not, um, 'troll=
ing', just, you know, educating myself and getting familiar with the group e=
thos and etiquette. =20

It wasn't until I'd read ~10 posts that I  understood the initial purpose of=
 the thread!  As few others have mentioned, I'm a bit surprised, at all the b=
ack and forth =C3=A0 la hip-hop 'battling' ;-) It certainly obfuscates-- whi=
le entertaining-- to the point where a newbie like myself might drop out... P=
erhaps this is intentional-- to maintain exclusivity and weed out the uninit=
iated.  I dunno.  But if not, I'm just noting, as something of an outsider, t=
hat it took a while.

But I'd like to contribute.  With what little knowledge I possess, I'm incli=
ned to favor hardfork... Is there a more suitable place to address this?  Pe=
rhaps to work on code?  For this specific project, that is...  Anyone point m=
e to a map somewhere?  LOL.

Thanks to all for reading, and much admiration to you all and the work you'v=
e done, my latter comments notwithstanding! =20

Cheers,
N


> On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>=20
> That's for Mike Hearn. Sooner the better. Hong Kong, December?
> Venzen Khaosan
>=20
>=20
>> On 10/07/2015 01:23 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Tell you what, eloquent guy...
>>=20
>> Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll=20
>> remove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin,
>> for good.
>>=20
>> Guaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with
>> client funds and this great innovation.
>>=20
>> Anytime, anywhere. I'm ready to dismantle your intellectual
>> bankruptcy in front of the world.
>>=20
>> I'll go for your psychological throat first.
>>=20
>> Sincerely, Venzen Khaosan.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On 10/05/2015 11:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> Hey Sergio,
>>=20
>>> To clarify: my /single/ objection is that CLTV should be a hard=20
>>> fork. I haven't been raising never-ending technical objections,=20
>>> there's only one.
>>=20
>>> I /have/ been answering all the various reasons being brought up=20
>>> why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem
>>> to be a limitless number of such emails .... but on my side it's
>>> still just a single objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I
>>> won't be objecting anymore, right?
>>=20
>>> CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other=20
>>> than me have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other=20
>>> desirable properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big
>>> question mark over soft forks.
>>=20
>>> As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that=20
>>> controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen,
>>> it's clear that CLTV cannot happen in its current form.
>>=20
>>> Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect
>>> the Core maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a
>>> soft fork anyway. I'm a cynic. I don't think "everyone must
>>> agree" is workable and have said so from the start. Faced with a
>>> choice of going back on their public statements or having to make
>>> changes to something they clearly want, I expect them to redefine
>>> what "real consensus" means. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not
>>> ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I have been
>>> talking about for so many months.
>>=20
>>> But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial
>>> risks to a soft fork.
>>=20
>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
>>> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=20
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
>> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=20
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>=20
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWFBLWAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mRM8H/0p2sz0gtu62bB+NrllRgU20
> C4imzMr904X7JicqDsGhtySGdyk8DuHBSK4k1A3pOgPb+DoNQhcOUfZ2ZTNgR2tT
> yjJHrJP2X+g8YixyQiQNBf65bogTgeBGEizh/H33RSGzdHwoIfeVS5Qja/AMUnk1
> 4XO8d+t5OdtYdKANmR/uUZikrnOXd6KIt9rmJhYUjqmLWXbHzQkhES0mFvJ1BdVZ
> ZHNjnWzoE74NAEmPqhhhtU/GCFKQhBq7HHAnqkMoeWk0mgJoGCc+b/4/PwchmUJq
> CmVO2TJFrnHb4tYAFgw14tdbSe5ERYT0pHW4qM3gJlYL1ik03k0iQDZZ0eStaXM=3D
> =3Dbwvw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev