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

June 26th, 2016

Huge if true. Proof that Technical Analysis of BTC markets is 💩?—@VinnyLinghammvinnylingham.com/the-1-dont-use…2pic.twitter.com/V5RBmwyyCJJ

via Medium

@pierre_rochard Though it seems that @eris_ltd is doing a pretty good job handling the “worst case” scenario for smart contracts.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to pierre_rochard

@pierre_rochard I think it comes down to: best case scenario, they blow normal contracts out of the water. Worst case: neightmare.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to pierre_rochard

@AlpacaSW @dgenr818 @santisiri If you’re running reasonable contracts that don’t screw over a significant portion of users, should be fine.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to AlpacaSW

@AlpacaSW @dgenr818 @santisiri It appears the fine print doesn’t meet the community’s expectation of reasonableness. media.law.uark.edu/arklawreview/2…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to AlpacaSW

bradheath Federal court: Computers connected to the internet aren’t private, have no 4th Am. protection. Expect to be hacked. pic.twitter.com/dHK1g9LpJh

via Twitter Web Client (retweeted on 11:38 AM, Jun 26th, 2016 via Twitter for Android)

4) Thus you shouldn’t use a public permissionless blockchain unless you believe most people are moral & rational. I, for one, do believe it.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

3) Historically, this only tends to happen defensively when an individual first screws over a decent portion of the collective userbase.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

2) That is: if “everyone” using a public blockchain decides it’s in their best interest to collectively screw you, you will get screwed.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

1) Public permissionless consensus systems let you use them w/o trusting any one individual. However, you must trust everyone in aggregate.

via Twitter Web Client

@dgenr818 @santisiri It’s not a bug in ETH, but meatspace consensus is that the bug should be corrected…

via Twitter for Android in reply to dgenr818

@WhalePanda The issue is code execution vs intent of the code devs. It’s not a coincidence that both incidents received the same response.

via Twitter for Android in reply to WhalePanda

@santisiri seemed different initially bc the bug was at app layer, but now there are good arguments that protocol layer wasn’t well defined.

via Twitter for Android in reply to lopp

@santisiri If by “real bug” you mean the code did not execute the intent of its authors… I don’t see the difference.

via Twitter for Android in reply to santisiri

One perspective: both “billion BTC” & “DAO attacker” get to keep their tokens, but everyone else has decided to use a different blockchain.

via Twitter for Android in reply to lopp

@fluffyponyza Either way, it appears that intent is more powerful than code when it comes to distributed consensus systems…

via Twitter for Android in reply to fluffyponyza

If DAO attacker deserves to keep tokens b/c they followed rules, doesn’t whoever created 184B BTC in 2010 as well? 🤔en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_ove…

via Twitter for Android