@cypherdoc2 @TuurDemeester Soft forks can be rather hacky and you could argue that they have security issues of their own.
@cypherdoc2 @TuurDemeester Yes, but they figured out how to implement it in a way that current protocol versions essentially ignore it.
@cypherdoc2 @TuurDemeester Development of the Bitcoin protocol only requires consensus for change, not for maintaining the status quo.
@cypherdoc2 @TuurDemeester 300+ people have contributed to Bitcoin Core; there is not consensus on the definition of “Core Developer” :-)
@TuurDemeester Almost everyone supports a soft fork for Segregated Witness. The difference is those who also want a block size hard fork.
SpaceX The Falcon 9 first stage landing is confirmed. Second stage continuing nominally. pic.twitter.com/RX2QKSl0z7
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED!!!! https://t.co/C09StBYZvG
@kristovatlas Thankfully the capitalization is different or we’d have a perfect collision and a REAL conundrum on our hands!
Cryptocurrency company name collisions continue coming! pic.twitter.com/yjHTHx7oat
I predict that we will see 0 hard forks (for any reason) adopted by Bitcoin Core in 2016. https://t.co/OyGYxWfvcC
“Error 451: Forbidden by Government. Please try again via @torproject” https://t.co/wIo9BsE78U
@flyosity What marketeer decided that “codeblooded” (cold blooded) is a selling point?
flyosity Fidelity is looking for programmers who make syntax errors in nonsensical programming languages. pic.twitter.com/k4hAHz1xwk
RT @ryanxcharles: I asked which article you wanted me to write. “10 GB Blocks” had the most votes. Presenting: 10 GB Blocks. https://t.co/U…