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

January 29th, 2017

@adam3us @Excellion @bhec39 The BU nodes in my logs all claim to have an Excessive Block size set to 4, 8, or 16 MB. Think they’d accept.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to adam3us

I guess you could say…
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
… consensus emerged.
twitter.com/lopp/status/82…

via Twitter Web Client

@Excellion @bhec39 Technically, it was a valid block (on a subset of the BU network) that was orphaned when the Core network ignored it.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Excellion

@Chris_Stewart_5 @SatoshiLite That’s OK; they’ll lose plenty more if BU’s EC actually kicks in and starts orphaning left and right.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Chris_Stewart_5

@mikestable @flyosity True, though the math to determine values of rights is beyond my abilities, so I just consider them all important.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to mikestable

@SatoshiLite The free market sorts these things out beautifully.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to SatoshiLite

@AlpacaSW @pwuille @TheBlueMatt @timoncc Yeah, but I would think that you would want to ban peers offering bad blocks regardless.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to AlpacaSW

@pwuille @TheBlueMatt @timoncc Makes me wonder: why didn’t my node ban the last 2 peers sending the bad block? twitter.com/lopp/status/82…

via Twitter Web Client

My node behind statoshi.info rejected this invalid Bitcoin Unlimited block not once, not twice, but three..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…Au

via Twitter Web Client

@SatoshiLite @AaronvanW Not seeing it on other explorers or nodes; I recall the time bc.info falsely displayed a Satoshi tx.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to SatoshiLite

@SatoshiLite @AaronvanW Any independent verification that block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5 was real?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to SatoshiLite

@desantis Ammo can failed Faraday cage test. Materials for my next project have arrived. pic.twitter.com/7XYaDJis19

via Twitter for Android

5) The greater the diversity of available means to rebalance channels and keep them open, the greater the robustness of @lightning network.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

4) You can think of channel rebalancing as a sort of “liquidity injection” that stabilizes a poorly performing piece of the network.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

3) Forced channel closures, depending upon a variety of factors, may range from mildly annoying to nearly catastrophic.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

2) As I noted in my @lightning article, channel rebalancing may be one of the greatest engineering challenges. coindesk.com/lightning-tech…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

1) Brilliant idea and kind of a big deal for @lightning network; here’s why: twitter.com/SatoshiLite/st…

via Twitter Web Client

@flyosity Eh, the difference is if people think it’s OK to sacrifice some rights vs a more extreme view of protecting all rights.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to flyosity

@flyosity ROFL Democrats want to restrict rights too - just different ones from Republicans.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to flyosity

@seweso @riprowan @drwasho To be clear, you could run any number of implementations such as NBitcoin, bcoin, btcd, libbitcoin, toshi…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to seweso

@riprowan @seweso @drwasho You’re mixing up two different issues. I’m comparing specific implementation, not arguing meta Bitcoin protocol.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to riprowan

@riprowan @seweso @drwasho B/C everyone uses same rules, chain can reorg but eventually everyone will follow chain with most cumulative PoW.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to riprowan

“Introduction to Bitcoin & Blockchains” - a presentation I gave recently at @NCStateMcKimmon Center. youtube.com/watch?v=F4piSv…

via Twitter Web Client

@riprowan @seweso @drwasho That’s a meta issue, though - if you don’t agree with the consensus rules, you aren’t running Core.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to riprowan

@riprowan @seweso @drwasho There is no technical reason that guarantees chain convergence. This is a classic “freedom vs safety” argument.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to riprowan

@riprowan @seweso @drwasho With Core, every node will reject excessive blocks and miners get forked off the main chain.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to riprowan

@deadalnix @seweso @drwasho Indeed - I think we can all agree that the market will prevail in the sense that it will choose the rule system.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

@riprowan @seweso @drwasho Unfortunately not: miners can either blow past your EB limit or if your AD is huge, fork you off the main chain.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to riprowan

@deadalnix @seweso @drwasho Not playing dumb, playing devil’s advocate.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

@seweso @drwasho You could make that same claim about any number of consensus rules. Why not create EC for coinbase rewards?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to seweso

@BitcoinNemesis Holders can run nodes or they can vote with their feet by selling coins.

via Twitter for Android in reply to BitcoinNemesis

@seweso @drwasho Decentralized control: rules enforced at the edges (by each individual node.)

via Twitter for Android in reply to seweso

@seweso @drwasho The balance of power in Bitcoin is too complex to shift it around and claim it’s safe just because..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…E8

via Twitter for Android in reply to seweso