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

January 1st, 2017

@Excellion How much do you think the makebitcoingreatagain.com domain is worth? Asking for a friend…

via Twitter for Android

@giaglis @MScDigital Thanks for the reminder - I’ll add it!

via Twitter Web Client in reply to giaglis

@drwasho Right, if you don’t need TM fixed then you don’t have to use SegWit. A hard fork would be cleaner but won’t happen any time soon.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to drwasho

Want to understand Bitcoin better? My epic list of educational resources: sites.google.com/site/bitcoinsi…
(Suggestions for other links are welcome!)

via Twitter Web Client

@SooMartindale @p4miller @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge Impossible to predict the future, though. We shall see.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@ssoeborg Right, very few people are against both hard and soft forks. Main argument is /how/ to scale, not /if/ to scale.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ssoeborg

@ssoeborg There are soft forks & hard forks; you can scale via either. It turns into a philosophical debate about the merits of each.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ssoeborg

@jgarzik @el33th4xor @BitfuryGeorge Completely agree - seems to me that 1 step forward is better than 0 steps.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to jgarzik

@jgarzik @el33th4xor @BitfuryGeorge A general engineering problem across the board - devs need to shove complexity under the hood.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to jgarzik

@jgarzik @el33th4xor @BitfuryGeorge I felt the same way, then wallet & library devs wrote support for it… might as well use it.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to jgarzik

@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I’ve lost count at how many people have laughed at Bitcoin’s exceptionalism over the years…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to el33th4xor

@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge If it’s ready, yes. Seems to me that practicality in Bitcoin is far different from traditional software.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to el33th4xor

@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I just don’t want to be having this same discussion on Jan 1, 2018.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I’m sure there are innumerable theoretical ways to approach scaling. I’m focusing on practicality now.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to el33th4xor

@ssoeborg There are multiple possible approaches to scaling. One is allowing more data in blocks. Another is decreasing data required.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ssoeborg

@BronxR @el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge Technically true. I was in favor of a hard fork, but it’s clearly not happening any time soon.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to BronxR

@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge The ability for Bitcoin to onboard more users without compromising its strengths.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to el33th4xor

@SooMartindale @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge Not the point. Fixing TM enables a platform for building better scaling solutions on top of BTC.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to SooMartindale

@ssoeborg @KyleBenzle Problem is there is no expectation set for node operators to have to upgrade lest they be forked off the network.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ssoeborg

@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I’m in favor of every solution that propels us forward. Thing is, SegWit could be available in 2 weeks™

via Twitter Web Client in reply to el33th4xor

@ssoeborg @KyleBenzle It’s more complex code, it changes some economics of UTXO spending, it’s a soft fork that “blinds” nodes to new rules.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ssoeborg

@jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge For me, I’d say it’s mostly UTXO and fee related problems. 2nd layer networks may be less susceptible.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to jgarzik

@KyleBenzle You’re reading too much /r/btc propaganda.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to KyleBenzle

@deadalnix @ErolKazan I see. Well, I can only fit so much into 140 chars. I’d urge you not to assume that other people have bad intentions.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

@deadalnix @ErolKazan Sounds like a straw man argument to me. I don’t see anyone claiming SegWit solves malleability for non-SegWit txns.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

@deadalnix @ErolKazan Why do non segwit transactions need to be phased out?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

@ErolKazan It’s not so much a statistical issue as it is a binary issue of solving problems. blog.bitgo.com/malevolent-mal… bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ErolKazan

@deadalnix @ErolKazan Are you just arguing that it doesn’t solve malleability because non-segwit txns are still malleable?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

Miners: it’s up to you to make Bitcoin great again by fixing transaction malleability. Fastest path forward: activate Segregated Witness.

via Twitter Web Client