{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:Gregory,\n\nyou are good at language and its easy to write eloquent words.\n\nLooking at this little dialog, for instance;\n\nOn Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:\n\u003e \u003e 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all\n\u003e \u003e technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that\n\u003e \u003e person agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial.\n[snip]\nOn Monday 5. October 2015 18.35.13 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I am aware of no instance where an active contributor to core has made\n\u003e the claim that no change to consensus can happen without 100% support\n\nThis *seems* to read like the same thing. But it is not.  Your version is more \npolarizing and changes the intent quite dramatically.\n\nIt is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also \nmakes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.\nFor the second time in this thread. \nI would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man."}