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

May 28th, 2017

@dgenr818 Right; the point being that Bitcoin’s security model need not necessitate transactions commit to signatures.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to dgenr818

@guruvan I do have good news for you, though. If you run Core you can disable signature skipping during initial blo..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…eW

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@guruvan Every implementation I’m aware of has checkpoints to skip signatures
github.com/BitcoinUnlimit…..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…kj

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@guruvan Ah right, I had forgotten about that. Well, I have bad news for you. Line 936: btc.yt/lxr/satoshi/so…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to guruvan

@guruvan You claim that this is “a bug.” I wish to know which software you suggest running that doesn’t contain this “bug.”

via Twitter Web Client in reply to guruvan

@guruvan Do tell, which full node software are you suggesting one use instead?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to guruvan

@deadalnix @ssoeborg @JihanWu @kristovatlas It’s not “central planning” per se unless the planners can force their..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…Br

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

@cdelargy The (expensive) collusion would have to occur in conjuction w/a 100% sybil attack upon a freshly syncing..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…6u

via Twitter Web Client in reply to cdelargy

@mwilcox Yes, but it’s only needed at time of transaction creation / for recent blocks. Historical syncing of blockchain need not check.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to mwilcox

lopp @mwilcox Once sufficient PoW protects a block, there’s little point in checking signatures. Bitcoin Core already sk..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…4I

via Twitter Web Client (retweeted on 7:47 PM, May 28th, 2017 via Twitter Web Client)

@mwilcox Once sufficient PoW protects a block, there’s little point in checking signatures. Bitcoin Core already sk..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…4I

via Twitter Web Client in reply to mwilcox

Bitcoin’s blockchain is currently 60% larger than it needs to be; it’s full of unnecessary historical data. This data is called signatures.

via Twitter Web Client

Those who scoffed at the thought of $1,000 BTC are scoffing at $10,000 BTC and will scoff at $100,000 BTC.

via Twitter Web Client

@JihanWu @deadalnix @kristovatlas As a miner, don’t you prefer the UTXO set to be smaller so that it’s easier for you to keep in memory?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to JihanWu

@deadalnix @kristovatlas I’ve heard these claims made in the past; are there any in-depth explanations to which you could link?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to deadalnix

@kristovatlas You think SegWit makes it harder to hard fork in the future?
You think SegWit makes non-SegWit transactions more expensive?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@dykstranet @TaylorGerring I’m not sure offhand, though @murchandamus probably does from the research he did for his master’s thesis.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to dykstranet

@kyuupichan If anything, SegWit users will leave more space for your non-SegWit sends, staving off some of the fee market spikes.

via Twitter for Android in reply to kyuupichan

@A_Hannan_Ismail @MrChrisEllis “We are all Satoshi” is a meme that preaches tolerance. “Bitcoin shrugs” similarly s..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…mM

via Twitter for Android in reply to A_Hannan_Ismail

For those who are anti-SegWit: how would other people’s use of SegWit negatively impact your usage of non-SegWit transactions?

via Twitter for Android

If you want to reach people who radically disagree with you, your only hope is to put yourself in their shoes & avoid tribalistic language.

via Twitter for Android

In the beginning Satoshi said “let there be Bitcoin” and there was Bitcoin. Today many Satoshis say “let’s change Bitcoin” & Bitcoin shrugs.

via Twitter for Android

ponli137 @ARKblockchain Yes is a new life form, , feeds on energy, has metabolism, increases entropy, l..twitter.com/i/web/status/8…Rr

via Twitter for Android (retweeted on 9:01 AM, May 28th, 2017 via Twitter Web Client)

Bitcoin wallets should implement dynamic dust limits for output values. At current fee rates, no one should create outputs < 0.0005 BTC.

via Twitter Web Client