{"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:On Monday 5. October 2015 18.03.05 Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by\n\u003e Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial. His\n\u003e arguments have  been refuted.\n\nUnsuccessfully.\n\n\u003e Simply making a noise does not make something controversial. When it is\n\u003e controversial, it is obvious and plain to see.\n\nI think its plain to see the soft fork is controversial.\n\nBut that’s not the point.\n\nThe point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and sticks \nto \"no change\" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason why \nbigger blocks were blocked for years.\n\nHistory has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't work, \nand this argument has been made to Core. \nUntil today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike was \nreally passionate about.\nToday this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about.\n\nI think today is the day that everyone should agree that the past is the past \nand we all learned our lesson and Bitcoin Core will make decisions a different \nway."}