{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Monday 5. October 2015 18.03.05 Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by\n\u003e\u003e Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial. His\n\u003e\u003e arguments have  been refuted.\n\u003e\n\u003e Unsuccessfully.\n\nI think rather successfully. That Mike himself continues to misexplain\nthings is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his\nmotivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his\nblocksize hardfork on people. Since this motivation is uncorrelated\nwith any property of soft-forks or CLTV we should not expect his\nposition to change.\n\n\u003e The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and sticks\n\u003e to \"no change\" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason why\n\u003e bigger blocks were blocked for years.\n\nYou're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your\ncomplaint up with him-- not the list."}