rich1.0npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edhttps://nostr.ae/npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ednjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05 📝 Original message:On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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. > No, that is not correct and you are distorting facts to fit your argument. We have discussed the tradeoffs of each method in general, but that does not make hard forks or soft forks controversial in an of itself. There is technical consensus to roll out CLTV by ISM, and if somehow you are right, it will come out during deployment in much the same way as your recent attempt at rolling out a controversial hardfork. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151005/45f8c2cb/attachment.html>