@realSimonBurns @taariqlewis And the millionth time someone has said “I was just reading it for the articles!”
@shannonNullCode @desantis It varies state by state. Regardless: scooters / bicycles / walking < cars.
Drunk drivers are going to love autonomous cars. No longer shall they be relegated to riding scooters after losing their license!
@tomlebree @pmarca @elonmusk @JeffBezos Waking up as a billionaire and arguing about the size of your rocket ship is probably nice too!
@rogerkver Probably because the Core testnet nodes are now on a different chain fork that is now at height 627350.
@pierre_rochard Indeed, and with the right tools we should be able to automate quite a bit of arbitration.
@pierre_rochard The point is to avoid costly court systems, which most people already do. Goal should be to deprecate court for most txns.
Nearly all transactions made today rely upon the court system as a final authority. Blockchain as a final authority is much more efficient.
@ollekullberg Sure, that’s where it gets complicated, hard to measure. Depends upon total economic value of nodes running that set of rules.
@ollekullberg If you’re an SPV node, sure. But a full node will reject blocks that it deems invalid, regardless of the proof of work.
@ollekullberg Ehhhh, majority hashing power can’t force blocks onto nodes that break the rules to which they have agreed upon.
@el33th4xor What is ‘altruism’ and what is not gets hazy if we’re all working toward a common goal.
@el33th4xor Bitcoin works under the assumption that the majority of participants will act in the best interest of the network.
@bgok @aantonop Bitcoin is already incredibly complicated and most users need not worry about mundane details. I’m not worried about names.
@ollekullberg Well, it’s a complex balance of “who decides” but the miners have effectively handed their deciding power to Bitcoin Core devs
Bitcoin’s network requires machine consensus to maintain status quo.
Protocol dev reqs human consensus to enact change, none for status quo.
@pierebel @aantonop We may not be able to come to a consensus about block sizes, but surely we can at least come to a consensus about names.
@aantonop Alright, we can call it “divorced signatures” but then we won’t have “witness protected programs.”
@taariqlewis @rusty_twit The proof is in the pudding: fee estimates for target of 2 blocks are 10,000 sat/KB higher. pic.twitter.com/aLH7aESDI1