The below is an off-site archive of all tweets posted by @lopp ever

June 6th, 2015

8) If you aren’t passionate enough to share your work with the world, are you passionate enough to be doing it in the first place?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

7) Knowledge sharing is critical to advancement. “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.” - Isaac Newton

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

6) Even if the vast majority of the world doesn’t care about your work right now, this may not be the case in the future.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

5) If you are on the forefront of your field then it’s quite likely that very few people share your knowledge or passion.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

4) But technical writing is not for popularity, it’s about making your deposit to humanity’s global knowledge database.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

3) Sure, if you write a blog post about tech that not many people use or work on, you’re not going to get many reads or much karma.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

2) There is a huge volume of insights not being shared with the world because many engineers feel no one shares their passion.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

1) I want to see more engineers writing long form posts about their passions and the lessons learned in their field.

via Twitter Web Client

@ImmranAhmed @muneeb If you’re using a traditional data store, sure. But not if you’re using block chains. :-)

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ImmranAhmed

“If there is ever going to be a single sign-on / global ID system then no single company can own that namespace.” - @muneeb

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@ofnumbers The struggle is real; if rest of ecosystem (nodes, businesses, users) chooses fork w/less hashpower, holdout miners may relent.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ofnumbers

“Experiences with Scaling Blockchain-based Data Stores” by @muneeb research.microsoft.com/apps/video/def…

via Twitter Web Client

aantonop Bitlicense section 200.15 (j) effectively prohibits licensees from operating relaying bitcoin nodes. How will they connect to bitcoin net?

via TweetDeck (retweeted on 12:56 PM, Jun 6th, 2015 via Twitter for Android)

6) Thus I don’t believe that Core developers should take miner profitability in specific conditions into account when changing the protocol.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

5) We have already observed several generations of mining hardware and techniques be developed and fall into obsolescence.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

4) The open-endedness of how miners uphold their end of the contract is what spurs competition and innovation.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

3) There is no contract between the protocol and miners stating that miners should be profitable under specific conditions.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

2) However, the contract between the protocol and the miners is clear - show PoW and propagate your blocks and you’ll earn revenue.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

1) Miners have the right to reject changes to the Bitcoin protocol if those changes are against the economic interest of the miner.

via Twitter Web Client

@flyosity The hour passes fairly quickly and productively on Caltrain.

via Twitter for Android in reply to flyosity