From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:26:12 +0100
Message-ID: <2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzvMLTu8pmOVVJfg5xUWHMWiAcAUJXig2B=qX9Oimu+vGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzvMLTu8pmOVVJfg5xUWHMWiAcAUJXig2B=qX9Oimu+vGw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

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 th=
at 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=E2=80=99s not the point.

The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and=
 sticks=20
to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason=
 why=20
bigger blocks were blocked for years.

History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't =
work,=20
and this argument has been made to Core.=20
Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike =
was=20
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 th=
e past=20
and we all learned our lesson and Bitcoin Core will make decisions a di=
fferent=20
way.