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

January 20th, 2017

@TuurDemeester Would same argument hold water for a gold ETF?

via Twitter for Android in reply to TuurDemeester

@alansilbert @brianchoffman @kristovatlas @SatoshiRoundtbl Firing miners should not be embarked upon lightly - it can only be done once.

via Twitter for Android in reply to alansilbert

@Awyee707 @ErikVoorhees @jgarzik Large companies evaluate Bitcoin and quickly realize they can’t use it b/c they’d swamp the network.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Awyee707

@Awyee707 @ErikVoorhees I’d suggest you look into the “Fidelity Problem” as coined by @jgarzik

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Awyee707

@NTmoney You forgot the quotation marks around journalism

via Twitter Web Client in reply to NTmoney

@CharlieShrem Individually I don’t think incentive changes. Collectively, as total value & # enterprises increases, I’d hope # nodes would.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to CharlieShrem

@CharlieShrem The incentive is Bitcoin’s security model. You need a full node for trustless financial sovereignty + superior privacy.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to CharlieShrem

bergealex4 “SegWit: The Swiftest Safe Path Forward” by @lopp medium.com/segwit-co/segw…

via Twitter Web Client (retweeted on 1:34 PM, Jan 20th, 2017 via Twitter Web Client)

@robustus In practice, nearly nonexistent on mainnet. OTOH, see reorgs hundreds & thousands of blocks long on testnet, often breaking stuff.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to robustus

@robustus At the node layer it’s handled fine. But handling at the app layer and figuring out how to inform users is the pain.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to robustus

@sickpig Bitcoin is crypto anarchy; when voice fails your option is exit - no one can stop you.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to sickpig

As a dev I’ll be avoiding any Bitcoin implementation that increases # of chain reorganizations b/c it’s a PITA to deal with at app layer.

via Twitter Web Client

@sickpig You can call it what you want, by “democracy” I mean that sufficient entities voting get to force changes onto the minority.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to sickpig

@MKjrstad Which brings us full circle to the unanswered and possibly unanswerable question of acceptable cost of CONOP…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MKjrstad

@sickpig I prefer free markets, but have to balance ability for individual to have financial sovereignty. I doubt democracy is the solution.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to sickpig

@MrHodl Therein lies the crux of the debate. One pro of soft fork segwit is that it doesn’t increase CONOP.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MrHodl

@MKjrstad @BitcoinUnlimite So? How would that affect anyone who is following the chain with the most cumulative PoW?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MKjrstad

@sickpig If block size isn’t consensus, nodes can’t enforce. You’re saying a signaling mechanism vulnerable to Sybil attacks == consensus?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to sickpig

@evankaloudis It appears to me that the market has decided… to stick to 1 MB blocks. I can’t stop the market.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to evankaloudis

The (max) cost of each option is fairly clear. Removing block limit makes full & pruned node cost unclear. twitter.com/lopp/status/82…

via Twitter Web Client

We currently have limited choice: run an archive node, run a pruned node, run an SPV node, use someone else’s node. twitter.com/lopp/status/82…

via Twitter Web Client

It would be preferable if every Bitcoin user could decide what cost they paid to run a node. Unfortunately we don’t know if that’s possible.

via Twitter Web Client

@MKjrstad @BitcoinUnlimite You’re claiming that segwit (activation or usage) can be Sybil attacked?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MKjrstad

@BitcoinUnlimite @MKjrstad OK, so the argument is that we can fall back to human consensus if needed. That is correct. It will also suck.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to BitcoinUnlimite

@seweso Can you point me to the code where miners are counting node signals? I’d like to see how it resists Sybil attacks.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to seweso

Removing block size from consensus changes Bitcoin’s balance of power & misaligns incentives, allowing miners to arbitrarily increase CONOP.

via Twitter Web Client

@MKjrstad A @BitcoinUnlimite node’s self-configured size only works temporarily; with sufficient chain depth you must accept larger blocks

via Twitter Web Client in reply to MKjrstad

@Cryptoe1337 I doubt it - that’s a worst case scenario; miners could easily self impose lower limits.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Cryptoe1337

I’d consider updating my Bitcoin nodes to support a hard fork up to perhaps 10MB. But asking me to support an uncapped cost is unreasonable.

via Twitter for Android

@seweso @gavinandresen Given that money is effectively a shared delusion / belief, yes, it shares qualities with organized religion.

via Twitter for Android in reply to seweso

@gavinandresen You may recall that I’m in favor of a hard fork. After the past year(s) I’m not seeing progress toward consensus…

via Twitter for Android in reply to gavinandresen

paulvigna Grayscale files S-1 to list its Bitcoin Investment Trust on the NYSE, per SEC filing.

via TweetDeck (retweeted on 9:27 AM, Jan 20th, 2017 via Twitter for Android)

@MKjrstad @seweso @olivierjanss OK, no one is stopping you from proving that point…

via Twitter for Android in reply to MKjrstad

@MKjrstad @seweso @olivierjanss I suspect a market based limit would be increased until the pain is too much to han..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…j1

via Twitter for Android in reply to MKjrstad

@olivierjanss @seweso Yes, but it’s clear now that a hard fork can’t garner sufficient support. Last I checked, BU..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…f6

via Twitter for Android in reply to olivierjanss

@seweso @olivierjanss That’s the point - there is always a cost. Fundamental reason for debate is that no one can q..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…IF

via Twitter for Android in reply to seweso