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

January 10th, 2017

@twobitidiot Looks like you’re missing a headshot for @jcp. Might I suggest his Twitter photo? pic.twitter.com/lrNNguItS6

via Twitter Web Client in reply to twobitidiot

@Royal_Arse @googlechrome @brave Nothing major; if you are a power user w/a ton of browser plugins, you might miss some features.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Royal_Arse

@CharlieShrem It’s interesting to see traditional politicking being (futilely?) injected into a system that has no central power structure.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to CharlieShrem

Truthcoin New blog post: “Two Types of Blockspace Demand” truthcoin.info/blog/blockspac…

via Twitter Web Client (retweeted on 5:08 PM, Jan 10th, 2017 via Twitter Web Client)

@MKjrstad Great, then everyone will get what they want! :-)

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MKjrstad

@MKjrstad Sure, and unless you’re transacting via your own full node, you’re letting someone else decide the rules..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…HQ

via Twitter for Android in reply to MKjrstad

3) It’s a simple fact that the only counter to a malevolent soft fork is a hard fork; this means node operators must remain vigilant.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

2) If you’re a full node operator, one of your duties is to stay up to date w/ ecosystem developments. Applies to both hard & soft forks.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

1) Good point that merits clarification. IMO, “people” don’t matter WRT consensus debates. Only full nodes matter. twitter.com/MKjrstad/statu…

via Twitter Web Client

@MKjrstad /Theoretically/ soft forks can do so. SegWit is certainly not being implemented in secret.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MKjrstad

@seweso To be clear, my “argument” is that different people have different views of how Bitcoin should be used. We should be open-minded.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to seweso

@MKjrstad The difference, of course, being that you’re creating new rules that every user must explicitly accept (or create a new network.)

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MKjrstad

7) Some people don’t want SegWit; they need not stand in the way of those who want to build upon it. SegWit will bring more value to Bitcoin

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

6) Now SegWit is a controversial feature proposed by @pwuille, who has spent years trying to solve txn malleability. github.com/bitcoin/bips/b…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

5) Today over a million transactions per year use OP_RETURN functionality to anchor into Bitcoin’s blockchain. twitter.com/lopp/status/81…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

4) In 2014, OP_RETURN was a controversial feature released as a “less bad” method for storing data in the blockchai..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…0j

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

3) P2SH is now used to secure $1B+ of value & is a building block for more advanced features such as payment channels & @lightning network.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

2) In 2012, P2SH was a controversial feature proposed by @gavinandresen. Took a month to activate w/a 55% threshold. bitcointalk.org/index.php?topi…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

1) Segregated Witness is shaping up to be a “controversial” feature for the Bitcoin protocol. Let’s talk about controversial features…

via Twitter Web Client

@gavinandresen I’d be interested to know if you see any parallels between the saga of P2SH and that of Segregated Witness.

via Twitter Web Client

@TuurDemeester @LukeDashjr Sooooo when Litecoin activates SegWit and Bitcoin doesn’t, is it bringing a major innovation? 🤔

via Twitter Web Client in reply to TuurDemeester