From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC4BD1E9B for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:36:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 499B0242 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so130118931wic.1 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:36:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=6yEkSo5iE8rZludrhIJQXI574L+XvX9h1W/Nl9ao42w=; b=WoluHxIVTw4ZvTEDubtXJMF1/LHrirn6lfTcoSZWAUZ82RC7/rjIfNAgz3vLQthItf 9kjimh1eRjv28Ps7j90a7Gc/maU7WCDU5Sxzqqf1GXtAQ1zuINaW3CZBUMx0KnpFqTvx 1ZbgBS1BYIGTZpQZJT4YBaFIoTXM8OP4+3qx0QnY9cO7SkDkSUtx3Gzyg83ICuJ2Vqcq jAuZEUMSyDYflGNppzGjghP2Exi7iDS6CoGHcY9nguzF4lAi6lr9ru3E743fFFnxnoV6 DipFHy3WioAL7Ow8cMwB7irykp44HsKku9TNNPStbMmdpFQZtfugifO2TBBuGFHwur7l TyKw== X-Received: by 10.180.105.196 with SMTP id go4mr11854690wib.36.1444066572854; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:36:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.21.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:35:53 +0100 Message-ID: To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:36:15 -0000 --f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. --f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
CLTV deployment is clearly contr= oversial. Many developers other than me have noted that hard forks are clea= ner, 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 arg= ument. 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.
=
=C2=A0
There is technical consensus to roll out CLTV by ISM,= and if somehow you are right, it will come out during deployment in much t= he same way as your recent attempt at rolling out a controversial hardfork.= =C2=A0
=C2=A0

--f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e--