Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

From: Venzen Khaosan <venzen@mail•bihthai.net>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 01:28:41 +0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <561412D9.3050603@mail.bihthai.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561411A5.4020905@mail.bihthai.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

That's for Mike Hearn. Sooner the better. Hong Kong, December?
Venzen Khaosan

On 10/07/2015 01:23 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Tell you what, eloquent guy...
> 
> Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll 
> remove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin,
> for good.
> 
> Guaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with
> client funds and this great innovation.
> 
> Anytime, anywhere. I'm ready to dismantle your intellectual
> bankruptcy in front of the world.
> 
> I'll go for your psychological throat first.
> 
> Sincerely, Venzen Khaosan.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/05/2015 11:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Hey Sergio,
> 
>> To clarify: my /single/ objection is that CLTV should be a hard 
>> fork. I haven't been raising never-ending technical objections, 
>> there's only one.
> 
>> I /have/ been answering all the various reasons being brought up 
>> why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem
>> to be a limitless number of such emails .... but on my side it's
>> still just a single objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I
>> won't be objecting anymore, right?
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that 
>> controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen,
>> it's clear that CLTV cannot happen in its current form.
> 
>> Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect
>> the Core maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a
>> soft fork anyway. I'm a cynic. I don't think "everyone must
>> agree" is workable and have said so from the start. Faced with a
>> choice of going back on their public statements or having to make
>> changes to something they clearly want, I expect them to redefine
>> what "real consensus" means. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not
>> ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I have been
>> talking about for so many months.
> 
>> But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial
>> risks to a soft fork.
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
>> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org 
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWFBLWAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mRM8H/0p2sz0gtu62bB+NrllRgU20
C4imzMr904X7JicqDsGhtySGdyk8DuHBSK4k1A3pOgPb+DoNQhcOUfZ2ZTNgR2tT
yjJHrJP2X+g8YixyQiQNBf65bogTgeBGEizh/H33RSGzdHwoIfeVS5Qja/AMUnk1
4XO8d+t5OdtYdKANmR/uUZikrnOXd6KIt9rmJhYUjqmLWXbHzQkhES0mFvJ1BdVZ
ZHNjnWzoE74NAEmPqhhhtU/GCFKQhBq7HHAnqkMoeWk0mgJoGCc+b/4/PwchmUJq
CmVO2TJFrnHb4tYAFgw14tdbSe5ERYT0pHW4qM3gJlYL1ik03k0iQDZZ0eStaXM=
=bwvw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----