rich1.0npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpfhttps://nostr.ae/npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpfnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-06 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 That's for Mike Hearn. Sooner the better. Hong Kong, December? Venzen Khaosan On 10/07/2015 01:23 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Tell you what, eloquent guy... > > Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll > remove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin, > for good. > > Guaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with > client funds and this great innovation. > > Anytime, anywhere. I'm ready to dismantle your intellectual > bankruptcy in front of the world. > > I'll go for your psychological throat first. > > Sincerely, Venzen Khaosan. > > > > On 10/05/2015 11:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Hey Sergio, > >> To clarify: my /single/ objection is that CLTV should be a hard >> fork. I haven't been raising never-ending technical objections, >> there's only one. > >> I /have/ been answering all the various reasons being brought up >> why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem >> to be a limitless number of such emails .... but on my side it's >> still just a single objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I >> won't be objecting anymore, right? > >> CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other >> than me have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other >> desirable properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big >> question mark over soft forks. > >> As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that >> controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen, >> it's clear that CLTV cannot happen in its current form. > >> Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect >> the Core maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a >> soft fork anyway. I'm a cynic. I don't think "everyone must >> agree" is workable and have said so from the start. Faced with a >> choice of going back on their public statements or having to make >> changes to something they clearly want, I expect them to redefine >> what "real consensus" means. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not >> ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I have been >> talking about for so many months. > >> But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial >> risks to a soft fork. > > >> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev >> mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWFBLWAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mRM8H/0p2sz0gtu62bB+NrllRgU20 C4imzMr904X7JicqDsGhtySGdyk8DuHBSK4k1A3pOgPb+DoNQhcOUfZ2ZTNgR2tT yjJHrJP2X+g8YixyQiQNBf65bogTgeBGEizh/H33RSGzdHwoIfeVS5Qja/AMUnk1 4XO8d+t5OdtYdKANmR/uUZikrnOXd6KIt9rmJhYUjqmLWXbHzQkhES0mFvJ1BdVZ ZHNjnWzoE74NAEmPqhhhtU/GCFKQhBq7HHAnqkMoeWk0mgJoGCc+b/4/PwchmUJq CmVO2TJFrnHb4tYAFgw14tdbSe5ERYT0pHW4qM3gJlYL1ik03k0iQDZZ0eStaXM= =bwvw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----