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

February 5th, 2017

naval It’s the news’ job to make you anxious & angry. Underlying scientific, economic, education & conflict trends are positive. Stay optimistic.

via Twitter for iPhone (retweeted on 10:11 PM, Feb 5th, 2017 via Twitter for Android)

@Excellion We’re at DEFCON 3; a full blown /r/btc attack has commenced! https://t.co/MQDZZuPfpE

via Twitter Web Client

@Excellion @CharlieShrem @Bitcoin_Embassy @olivierjanss Can we all just agree that Reddit sucks for a variety of reasons?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Excellion

@juan_manini @MishaRogov The “hard way” would be by losing money mining on a chain fork that few people accept & thus has little to no value

via Twitter Web Client

Traditional human consensus systems are like tug-of-war (winner take all.)
Bitcoin’s human consensus system is like a three-legged race.

via Twitter for Android

@seweso Sounds like a misunderstanding. There is no human consensus system in Bitcoin that forces convergence on 1 outcome.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to seweso

@gavinandresen @AaronvanW @killerstorm That is: a machine consensus system isn’t dead until there is consensus it’s dead (no supporters.)

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@gavinandresen @AaronvanW @killerstorm IMO the existence of machine consensus systems isn’t swayed by opponents, only by proponents.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to gavinandresen

@gavinandresen Thus if we’re talking about machine consensus then humans can choose not to participate if they don’t accept results, right?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to gavinandresen

@billy_bitcoin @gavinandresen Right; I think it’s important to differentiate between /machine/ consensus and /human/ consensus.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to billy_bitcoin

Machine consensus: agree upon rules, arrive at 1 outcome.
Human consensus systems: force 1 outcome via violence. https://t.co/ndDt3Op2PN

via Twitter Web Client