@joshmh @TuurDemeester @ViaBTC Yep, no need for yet another round of rhetoric to go along with it.
@BitcoinBelle @Piotr14Tra @timpastoor @el33th4xor @ryaneshea You can always create a @onename ID and link it to your twitter account
@badslinky Yeah, they’re kind of a second economic layer above the technical layer.
@TuurDemeester I don’t think I’ve heard a unique block size argument in at least 6 months. Less repetition, more action.
@el33th4xor Claim was that in conjunction they can be used to check any attribute of a txn; not sure of the details.
Episode 3: “In Search of Itself” https://t.co/WPmzXOFkWX with @nathanielpopper @adam3us @gavinandresen @bobbyclee
@Itnom You’re suggesting a stateless protocol that solves double spending?
Trust Disrupted: Bitcoin and the Blockchain (episodes 1 & 2) with @nathanielpopper https://t.co/7K5Oy58duy
@bergealex4 Right, from a macro view it’s not traditional governance so much as self-governance overlaps forming a usable network.
@SooMartindale that would fall under devs aiding in bypassing vetoes
@bergealex4 Nodes govern themselves :-)
@bergealex4 From a micro / technical view, all nodes are equal. From a macro view, it certainly gets more complicated.
3 branches of BTC “governance:”
* Full Nodes (can veto miners & devs)
* Miners (can veto devs)
* Devs (can help others bypass some vetoes)