{"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\nThat's for Mike Hearn. Sooner the better. Hong Kong, December?\nVenzen Khaosan\n\n\nOn 10/07/2015 01:23 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Tell you what, eloquent guy...\n\u003e \n\u003e Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll \n\u003e remove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin,\n\u003e for good.\n\u003e \n\u003e Guaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with\n\u003e client funds and this great innovation.\n\u003e \n\u003e Anytime, anywhere. I'm ready to dismantle your intellectual\n\u003e bankruptcy in front of the world.\n\u003e \n\u003e I'll go for your psychological throat first.\n\u003e \n\u003e Sincerely, Venzen Khaosan.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On 10/05/2015 11:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Hey Sergio,\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e To clarify: my /single/ objection is that CLTV should be a hard \n\u003e\u003e fork. I haven't been raising never-ending technical objections, \n\u003e\u003e there's only one.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I /have/ been answering all the various reasons being brought up \n\u003e\u003e why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem\n\u003e\u003e to be a limitless number of such emails .... but on my side it's\n\u003e\u003e still just a single objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I\n\u003e\u003e won't be objecting anymore, right?\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other \n\u003e\u003e than me have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other \n\u003e\u003e desirable properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big\n\u003e\u003e question mark over soft forks.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that \n\u003e\u003e controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen,\n\u003e\u003e it's clear that CLTV cannot happen in its current form.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect\n\u003e\u003e the Core maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a\n\u003e\u003e soft fork anyway. I'm a cynic. I don't think \"everyone must\n\u003e\u003e agree\" is workable and have said so from the start. Faced with a\n\u003e\u003e choice of going back on their public statements or having to make\n\u003e\u003e changes to something they clearly want, I expect them to redefine\n\u003e\u003e what \"real consensus\" means. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not\n\u003e\u003e ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I have been\n\u003e\u003e talking about for so many months.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial\n\u003e\u003e risks to a soft fork.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\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\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWFBLWAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mRM8H/0p2sz0gtu62bB+NrllRgU20\nC4imzMr904X7JicqDsGhtySGdyk8DuHBSK4k1A3pOgPb+DoNQhcOUfZ2ZTNgR2tT\nyjJHrJP2X+g8YixyQiQNBf65bogTgeBGEizh/H33RSGzdHwoIfeVS5Qja/AMUnk1\n4XO8d+t5OdtYdKANmR/uUZikrnOXd6KIt9rmJhYUjqmLWXbHzQkhES0mFvJ1BdVZ\nZHNjnWzoE74NAEmPqhhhtU/GCFKQhBq7HHAnqkMoeWk0mgJoGCc+b/4/PwchmUJq\nCmVO2TJFrnHb4tYAFgw14tdbSe5ERYT0pHW4qM3gJlYL1ik03k0iQDZZ0eStaXM=\n=bwvw\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}