rich1.0npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7https://nostr.ae/npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05 📝 Original message: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. > Simply making a noise does not make something controversial. When it is > controversial, it is obvious and plain to see. I think its plain to see the soft fork is controversial. But that’s not the point. 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. History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't work, and this argument has been made to Core. Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike was really passionate about. Today this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about. I think today is the day that everyone should agree that the past is the past and we all learned our lesson and Bitcoin Core will make decisions a different way.