@maxkeiser @el33th4xor The Internet’s threat model was nuclear armageddon - why settle for less? ☺ï¸
@brianchoffman @mikeinspace Pro tip: a ring of claymores around your full node works wonders.
@TplusZero Probably one of the biggest weak spots at the moment, though if miners did get coerced into attacking th… https://t.co/vgl6VemMnG
RT @murchandamus: I’ve just published a response to Jonald Fyookball’s article on Lightning Network: https://t.co/DNmWd6gtsN
There’s no shortage of excuses govts could use to justify attacking Bitcoin infrastructure; it must be robust against even armed aggressors.
@jimmysong Highly adopted LN will likely end up with a scale-free topology. Worth noting BTC already has many /cust… https://t.co/s1Mc2cnfgW
@el33th4xor Perhaps this is a problem that can be solved with enough @bitcoincartalk!
@msantoriESQ @virtuallylaw It’s FUD because no one can force you to delete signature data if you don’t want to.
@Satoshi_N_ @_drgo Miners pruning old signatures from their copies of the blockchain would change nothing…
@_drgo I suppose it will come down to the courts to decide if existence in a blockchain is sufficient to skip requi… https://t.co/pJ9TTXbixg
@_drgo Article is referencing the fact that signatures of segwit transactions will technically be prunable. Core do… https://t.co/cjTMBgVU8d
@morcosa We can’t let facts get in the way of FUD.
There is 0 risk here - if you /need/ to keep signatures for legal purposes then don’t prune them. Problem solved! https://t.co/XjuunB4soC
@Jim_Harper Just the latest of many such articles; little point refuting them since time will do that on its own. I… https://t.co/tSUHgrL15m
While some skeptics spend time explaining why Bitcoin / SegWit / Lightning Network won’t work, innovators are facing the challenges head-on.