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

December 22nd, 2015

@realSimonBurns @taariqlewis And the millionth time someone has said “I was just reading it for the articles!”

via Twitter Web Client in reply to realSimonBurns

@shannonNullCode @desantis It varies state by state. Regardless: scooters / bicycles / walking < cars.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to shannonNullCode

Drunk drivers are going to love autonomous cars. No longer shall they be relegated to riding scooters after losing their license!

via Twitter Web Client

@tomlebree @pmarca @elonmusk @JeffBezos Waking up as a billionaire and arguing about the size of your rocket ship is probably nice too!

via Twitter Web Client in reply to tomlebree

@rogerkver Probably because the Core testnet nodes are now on a different chain fork that is now at height 627350.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to rogerkver

@pierre_rochard Indeed, and with the right tools we should be able to automate quite a bit of arbitration.

via Twitter for Android in reply to pierre_rochard

@pierre_rochard The point is to avoid costly court systems, which most people already do. Goal should be to deprecate court for most txns.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to pierre_rochard

Nearly all transactions made today rely upon the court system as a final authority. Blockchain as a final authority is much more efficient.

via Twitter Web Client

@ollekullberg Sure, that’s where it gets complicated, hard to measure. Depends upon total economic value of nodes running that set of rules.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ollekullberg

@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.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ollekullberg

@ollekullberg Ehhhh, majority hashing power can’t force blocks onto nodes that break the rules to which they have agreed upon.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ollekullberg

@el33th4xor What is ‘altruism’ and what is not gets hazy if we’re all working toward a common goal.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@el33th4xor Bitcoin works under the assumption that the majority of participants will act in the best interest of the network.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to el33th4xor

@bgok @aantonop Bitcoin is already incredibly complicated and most users need not worry about mundane details. I’m not worried about names.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to bgok

@ollekullberg Well, it’s a complex balance of “who decides” but the miners have effectively handed their deciding power to Bitcoin Core devs

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ollekullberg

Bitcoin’s network requires machine consensus to maintain status quo.
Protocol dev reqs human consensus to enact change, none for status quo.

via Twitter Web Client

@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.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to pierebel

@aantonop Alright, we can call it “divorced signatures” but then we won’t have “witness protected programs.”

via Twitter Web Client in reply to aantonop

@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

via Twitter Web Client in reply to taariqlewis