I made this reddit post earlier today: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9fvgsc/the_case_for_adding_ctor_to_bitcoin_cash_in/

I know I shouldn't be disapointed in the low quality of the discussion because reddit has always had tons of trolls...Still... It seemed like so many people had asked "ok but why do we need CTOR?" I put a lot of effort into researching the history of the issue, the roadmap, the design philosophy, the benefits, the criticisms... I laid it all out in factual terms. Did anyone appreciate this? A few people. Mostly what I saw was brainless negativity. First of all, I barely saw ANY discussion of what was in the article. There was 1 or 2 comments asking for proof of the claim that CTOR will help Graphene. We did have some data during the recent stress test showing that a great deal of the bandwidth was wasted on transaction ordering...and I have added this to the article. Andrew Stone chimed in with a brief comment about how doing optional ordering could achieve certain things. As was said in the article, that is of course possible ...but by no means necessarily superior. Keeping the the topological rule is less efficient for reasons stated in the article and expanded upon by jtoomim in a comment...and that includes Gavin's original cnnonical order. Many of the reddit comments were ad-hominem attacks about "how I must hate Craig and nChain" (I don't.) But the most common attack was a blatant appeal to authority about how CTOR is contentious.

Sorry, but even if it true that it is contentious, that isn't any kind of technical argument. Saying that BU voted for it, or that Flowee doesn't like it are not addressing any of the points.

Hello... logical fallacies 101 calling. Is anybody home? If BU people (or whoever else) cannot address the points, then it means they could be wrong, despite having a lot of people. Where are all those people that voted "no" on CTOR? Why aren't they coming forward with their brilliant arguments as to why my article is wrong? Seriously, I want to know.

Look, I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm not a moron either. I was the first to do a lot of things: mathematically prove LN is centralized, create an on chain betting protocol, invent an SPV friendly token scheme, etc. Is it possible I could be right about CTOR and a few people from BU are wrong? It's not that I'm even so bright; but I have the ability to listen to various sources and enough information to discern the truth about some things... Maybe... Heck, I could be wrong. Maybe I'm appealing to my own authority now. But if I'm wrong, show me how. Several of the nChain developers chimed in with comments and also failed to address any point in the article... or if anyone did, please tell me because I would love to actually discuss the points. In my research in preparing to write the article, I actually discovered that the parallel validation is not a strong argument although I had believed it to be. That is good. That is progress... learning... the ability to admit that I'm wrong...and wanting to learn more. Sadly I do not see any of these traits in many of the posters. They simply want to be right or align themselves with certain groups or people. Few people are ever free from bias...and few people are ever free from the influence of thought leaders or those more knowledgable...and I am no exception.

I listen to those that I think are smarter than me...and sometimes that includes Bitcoin ABC. I admit that. However, I do not agree with Bitcoin ABC on everything. For example I am concerned about talk of a new transaction format and segwit style foreshadows in the code. I do not know what that is about, but I will never support detached signatures... unless I discover more evidence that allows me to make an even more informed decision. See, that is what being open minded and teachable is all about. Listen, I used to follow Craig. I think has had some good ideas. But he cannot defend his objections to the ABC roadmap. No one from nChain can. They had their chance in Bangkok...and they had their chance again today. I saw they made a statement (some article) and I'll probably respond to it separately. It is true that there could be more data. That's a valid criticism. And its one I acknowledged in the article I wrote as well. The fact that we cannot agree to disagree on this and leave at that (and instead people are making stupid arguments on reddit) should tell you something. Oh, and the voting on reddit. I saw at least a dozen posts get 10 votes all in the same political direction within minutes. A post that said "just no." was at -4 and went to +7 in the blink of an eye. Back to defending objections to the ABC roadmap: Some people can defend their objections, like Tom Zander...however I happen to find ABC has stronger arguments. I have heard Zander's objections. I chatted with him personally on discord. Zander is a talented developer but I don't really agree with his position for reasons I stated in the article. Someone asked me today why I am so determined to have CTOR. I asked them why are they so determined not to have CTOR. I didn't go much into it in the article, but a big part of me pushing CTOR is wanting us to stick to the agreed upon roadmap. On that, I agree with Amaury.

The funny thing is (and I don't think many are aware of this), pushing for CTOR was never the agenda of Bitcoin ABC. Amaury and others had floated the discussion of whether we should be going for TTOR removal or just full on CTOR. This was back in the summer (June or so) in the biweekly dev meetings. No one had strong opinions. Some said we should just do CTOR. ABC wasn't attached to it. It was decided in the multi group meeting. So that's what ABC did. People changing stuff last minute is not professional or acceptable... and doing a deep dive research of it, I honestly found no reasons we shouldn't do CTOR. ABC isn't always professional... but usually they are the least unprofessional.

Now i'm just rambling and babbling. I should try to wrap this up. I really don't care about CTOR per se. Bitcoin Cash will be fine with or without it for the next 6-12 months or whatever. I think its a good change; I think the arguments against it are mostly bullshit. I wanted to compromise in Bangkok. That didn't happen for obvious reasons.