@OptimistLib @rubicon59 @alansilbert If there’s an emergency fork / attack, I’ll contribute to the best of my abilities.
RT @morcosa: I just published “Why Bitcoin doesn’t need a solution†https://t.co/XrQPlCnmKQ
@olivierjanss I’m personally unaffected by Litecoin’s activation parameters; aren’t we talking about Bitcoin?
Google officially no longer trusts Symantec. https://t.co/L8fYVGqAj8
@olivierjanss OK, that’s a very different issue… deployment parameters are very different from claiming feature itself has issues.
@olivierjanss You lost me. Are you saying Litecoin only has as many nodes as Bitcoin’s Testnet?
@olivierjanss Network partitioning is an artifact of how few nodes are on testnet: mesh is thin. Once again, a very different network.
@jedigras A wide variety of reasons including frustration, impatience, concentration of power, and capitalization.
@olivierjanss If you spent time on testnet, you’d know that it has /always/ experienced crazy reorgs. It’s a very different network.
@GeminiDotCom @talktoMazecraze Stop. Please stop.
@alansilbert Yeah, @GeminiDotCom has been publicly tweeting support replies for a while despite my recommendations otherwise…
@jedigras The entire ecosystem
Great post by @brucefenton on civility during these contentious times. https://t.co/LaCVlZIDq9 https://t.co/1k17UW6gl5
@masonic_tweets Shhhhh it isn’t ready yet :-)
The #Bitcoin “Civil War” in a nutshell: pic.twitter.com/V1M9CoUSkW
@masonic_tweets Tech startup? Gotta go with Coffiest!
@btcguy_ Invalid segwit spends is possible same as invalid p2sh spends are possible. Good incentive for miners to not create invalid blocks.
@btcguy_ Network split highly unlikely because mainnet has orders of magnitude more nodes - better connected network mesh.
@btcguy_ It could have been a network partition or it could have been someone creating blocks w/invalid segwit spends. My bet is on former.
@ryanxcharles It’s unfortunate to hear anyone saying that they want to see conflict and strife. 😞
@rubicon59 @alansilbert I wouldn’t worry about it too much; it’s outside of our control 😌
@rubicon59 @alansilbert It’s just posturing until it’s an actual attack. Pre-emptively countering posturing is a waste of resources.
@rubicon59 @alansilbert For major economic players, probably. But that’s not the only option. 🙂
@rubicon59 @alansilbert Anyone who wants to transact on a BU chain fork is free to do so. I suspect disruption would last < few days.
@jessedain @theonevortex @alansilbert @ChandlerGuo It’s a real threat, it would be disruptive, it wouldn’t be effective permanently.
@rubicon59 @alansilbert No, anyone can change the code they run at any time.
@rubicon59 @alansilbert Machine consensus can always be changed via human consensus. Nothing is set in stone.
@theonevortex @alansilbert Unless you are the person moving the market or spoke with those who are, trying to extract meaning => speculation
@rubicon59 @alansilbert By rendering the attackers’ ASICs useless, which could be done in a variety of ways.
@alansilbert @theonevortex I suspect either side will just claim that they are morally justified in “looking out” for those people.
@theonevortex @alansilbert Seems to me that those who consider it immoral vs moral are already split.
In the event of perpetual protocol pause, the “winners” will be those who keep their heads down and innovate w/o asking anyone’s permission.
@alansilbert Seems simple to me. Morality of an attack is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that such an attack would be parried.
Brinkmanship behooves nobody in Bitcoin. In fact, it very well may be that Bitcoin is resistant to traditional political strategies.