rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05 📝 Original message:On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Monday 5. October 2015 18.03.05 Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by >> Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial. His >> arguments have been refuted. > > Unsuccessfully. I think rather successfully. That Mike himself continues to misexplain things is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his motivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his blocksize hardfork on people. Since this motivation is uncorrelated with any property of soft-forks or CLTV we should not expect his position to change. > The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and sticks > to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason why > bigger blocks were blocked for years. You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your complaint up with him-- not the list.