📅 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>;
Btc Drak [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lh…zg7ed
2023-06-07 17:42:39
in reply to nevent1q…d6m2
Author Public Key
npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:39Event JSON
{
"id": "eff706f6a28a733177251359d9b4567f44fac330601e538aecde37405cd8e9b0",
"pubkey": "fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83",
"created_at": 1686159759,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b171b0a181c0ea41f6054eb15f1f19559c90fd9ce9e5f5fc159720aea23cfd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f0878b509501a3e4a53517be8b0b56240cb7ca6f46f8a5bccdbe7a6b697c1fde",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other than me\n\u003e have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other desirable\n\u003e properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big question mark over soft\n\u003e forks.\n\u003e\n\nNo, that is not correct and you are distorting facts to fit your argument.\nWe have discussed the tradeoffs of each method in general, but that does\nnot make hard forks or soft forks controversial in an of itself.\n\nThere is technical consensus to roll out CLTV by ISM, and if somehow you\nare right, it will come out during deployment in much the same way as your\nrecent attempt at rolling out a controversial hardfork.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151005/45f8c2cb/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "0780f3b6695b638f7db12983e8d1b0e1b9f0a72fe2e985744cff1b20f3e79a46d058a3eb60efffffb88bcd0958dc2d6a3dd6e7652ee1787469899116c7bd5b6a"
}