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

March 18th, 2017

I hold allegiance to no man, to no dev team in Bitcoin. My intention is to run the code that I judge best protects my financial sovereignty.

via Twitter Web Client

@kyletorpey Ah OK. Code speaks louder than words :-)

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kyletorpey

@kyletorpey No, I’m saying that there are literally 0 code differences between their github repo and Core. github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kyletorpey

@TuurDemeester Point being, however, that a dev could spend weeks working on a single pull request.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@TuurDemeester That is, lines of code are unrelated to contribution counts.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@TuurDemeester A commit to a project’s default branch or gh-pages branch, creation of an issue, or new Pull Request counts as a contribution

via Twitter Web Client in reply to TuurDemeester

@TuurDemeester If you’re talking about open source dev, probably. Though there’s more to being a good dev than writing many lines of code.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to TuurDemeester

@kyletorpey As far as I can tell it doesn’t have any code for Emergent Consensus.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kyletorpey

TuurDemeester ‘Innovative’ ETH overtaking ‘stale’ BTC? @aantonop responds: “don’t mistake easy sailing for great sailors”…twitter.com/i/web/status/8…aT

via Twitter Web Client (retweeted on 2:51 PM, Mar 18th, 2017 via Twitter Web Client)

@Satoshi_N_ It was a surprise to me too; I think very few people understand how it works. twitter.com/lopp/status/84…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Satoshi_N_

@zooko @ryanxcharles But my original tweet was really referring to miners planning on killing the non-EC chain.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@zooko @ryanxcharles By voluntarily switching to Emergent Consensus, node operators allow miners to decide block size up to network limit.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to zooko

@BitcoinBelle @CharlieShrem “We” is whoever is interested in participating in Bitcoin.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to BitcoinBelle

If I’m reading this correctly, the max block size acceptable by Bitcoin Unlimited nodes is not 32MB, but 256MB. github.com/BitcoinUnlimit…

via Twitter Web Client

@ryanxcharles Probably. The trade-off is that either you accept up to 32 MB blocks (currently) or you risk falling out of consensus.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ryanxcharles

@ryanxcharles Right, therefore users either get forced to take on more resource usage than they want or people fall out of consensus.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ryanxcharles

@ryanxcharles If you’re referring to EC, either the cap is only temporary or with a high AD, you get forked off the main chain.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ryanxcharles

@GaryBriane Selling while price is spiking prevents it from going higher and vice versa, thus reducing the total price change: volatility.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to GaryBriane

“Efficiency is the price we pay to buy liberty [in decentralized systems.]” - @aantonop

via Twitter Web Client

Is Bitcoin’s governance “decentralized?” @aantonop explains: youtube.com/watch?v=dtwaW7…

via Twitter Web Client

@kristovatlas @jimmysong Surely we’re in agreement that Satoshi is no longer relevant and anyone is free to create their own code.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@kristovatlas @jimmysong I’m afraid you’ve completely lost me. Is there a more detailed explanation of this argument somewhere?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@kristovatlas @jimmysong Your implied changes being that the 1MB cap gets raised. The 1MB cap is the explicit rule. One is code, one isn’t.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@kristovatlas @jimmysong With “Emergent Consensus” the block size is “centrally planned” by a small group of pool operators…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@kristovatlas @jimmysong There’s a bit of difference between explicit rules and implied future changes, but I see what you mean.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@kristovatlas @jimmysong “Central planning?” How is BU any less “centrally planned” than Core & other implementations?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@brianchoffman It’s the pesky permissionless pegging problem holding them back.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to brianchoffman

If you try to force other Bitcoin users to change the rules to which they agree against their will, you’re gonna have a bad time.

via Twitter Web Client

@granthummer @naval This can and will be changed. I suggest looking into user activated soft forks. The economy wil..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…ld

via Twitter for Android in reply to granthummer