{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpf","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpf","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-06\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nTell you what, eloquent guy...\n\nGive me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll\nremove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin, for\ngood.\n\nGuaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with client\nfunds and this great innovation.\n\nAnytime, anywhere. I'm ready to dismantle your intellectual bankruptcy\nin front of the world.\n\nI'll go for your psychological throat first.\n\nSincerely,\nVenzen Khaosan.\n\n\n\nOn 10/05/2015 11:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hey Sergio,\n\u003e \n\u003e To clarify: my /single/ objection is that CLTV should be a hard\n\u003e fork. I haven't been raising never-ending technical objections,\n\u003e there's only one.\n\u003e \n\u003e I /have/ been answering all the various reasons being brought up\n\u003e why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem to\n\u003e be a limitless number of such emails .... but on my side it's still\n\u003e just a single objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I won't be\n\u003e objecting anymore, right?\n\u003e \n\u003e CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other\n\u003e than me have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other\n\u003e desirable properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big question\n\u003e mark over soft forks.\n\u003e \n\u003e As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that \n\u003e controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen, it's\n\u003e clear that CLTV cannot happen in its current form.\n\u003e \n\u003e Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect the\n\u003e Core maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a soft\n\u003e fork anyway. I'm a cynic. I don't think \"everyone must agree\" is\n\u003e workable and have said so from the start. Faced with a choice of\n\u003e going back on their public statements or having to make changes to\n\u003e something they clearly want, I expect them to redefine what \"real\n\u003e consensus\" means. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not ..... well, at\n\u003e least everyone will see what Gavin and I have been talking about\n\u003e for so many months.\n\u003e \n\u003e But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial risks\n\u003e to a soft fork.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing\n\u003e list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWFBGjAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mn2cH/0pTx1C0FK8shPSPaC3xB6sA\nDpGTMrLWNai3i9VTwkUw8UvbqeL2QtZDghPdkDcvbmvOMc3UrOMQbc1eQ1eL6i3g\nDiUCqUShOIAIvWJXGPTPNBulWBW9VkgK0y3uOprTd5D0VWKpWvDj+DMNqHaAC2Ab\nJAfHx0mHlkTfrcBl30eAJWxoqG/ohu5QvTIP64AsK6w53qlbMcB13cES8mS/HJX9\nMUtBcCbYRfF3Gu+OeYaEzzzXeuwsqql9qHr2wZYe9rECkSmYgL0DT5+WZiLY8B/x\nE3dFtufR7yAHr91/gj9itOKf+unumhduX8LY8ubuIKmuwjdj30MDdNy7fqZ3uGs=\n=lftV\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}