On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@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.