📅 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.
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 17:42:41
in reply to nevent1q…3nyl
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:41Event JSON
{
"id": "2f6b237bd0ecdce427b83de5b7187b409ac99dccb702e61e0be2721cc1b35f05",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686159761,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b171b0a181c0ea41f6054eb15f1f19559c90fd9ce9e5f5fc159720aea23cfd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5d77d33fb5d8eaa36cd572370d971360ab75af636c3922b27d4b9c59eee461af",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:On Monday 5. October 2015 18.03.05 Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by\n\u003e Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial. His\n\u003e arguments have been refuted.\n\nUnsuccessfully.\n\n\u003e Simply making a noise does not make something controversial. When it is\n\u003e controversial, it is obvious and plain to see.\n\nI think its plain to see the soft fork is controversial.\n\nBut that’s not the point.\n\nThe point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and sticks \nto \"no change\" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason why \nbigger blocks were blocked for years.\n\nHistory has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't work, \nand this argument has been made to Core. \nUntil today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike was \nreally passionate about.\nToday this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about.\n\nI think today is the day that everyone should agree that the past is the past \nand we all learned our lesson and Bitcoin Core will make decisions a different \nway.",
"sig": "34dcbd27dfca2bca5f6c11a47d1a923ce89ddb5b2bef2afe2402e2204645ed5c5f98f5f5ec33dd64a5aa8e7b853a8c387b343fcc8314442e40b404a8b82e2ee3"
}