1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC4BD1E9B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:36:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so130118931wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:35:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztrk+EQ7+eBzE1K6SZTJBfbSfj3Ji34HWDkX3H_X4MzWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>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.</div>=
<div>=C2=A0</div><div>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<br></div><div>=C2=A0<br></div></div><br></div></div>
--f46d044282ce1b6c1b05215ef38e--
|
