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

February 9th, 2016

@Recode @desantis @verge @benpopper “The larger the block size, the more computing power is required to mine blocks” Nope, not that simple.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@Recode @desantis @verge *sigh* there are multiple development teams now but no, @benpopper, a hard fork has not (yet) occurred.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to Recode

Taking the @brave browser for a spin - it gracefully sidesteps the incredibly annoying anti-adblocker wall at Forbes. ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘

via Twitter Web Client

@kristovatlas Never had that happen with my full indexed nodes - you could try to directly connect to a trusted peer… or open an issue.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

@kristovatlas And you’re many blocks behind the tip?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

Bitnik_eu “Reload now fully supports the BitGo wallet” medium.com/@Bitnik/reloadโ€ฆ news @Bitnik_eu @BitGo via @Medium pic.twitter.com/Omo2MIu6sE

via Twitter Web Client (retweeted on 2:51 PM, Feb 9th, 2016 via Twitter Web Client)

@kristovatlas You saying QT is slow but bitcoind isn’t? Is CPU busy? Syncing should only be slow if you’re unlucky & connect to slow peers.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to kristovatlas

Bitcoin Core just opened door for hard forks by declaring a 2 year end of life on releases. bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/ twitter.com/lopp/statuses/โ€ฆ

via Twitter Web Client

@jerrybrito Clockchain is surprisingly accurate given that the blockchain’s primary purpose is timestamping and ordering of transactions…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to jerrybrito

@masonic_tweets What % of a company do VCs want in return for a decade of runway?

via Twitter Web Client in reply to masonic_tweets

masonic_tweets We have a misallocation of resources problem in Bitcoin. Everyone wants to work on the really difficult problems needed in 10-20 years

via Twitter for iPhone (retweeted on 11:33 AM, Feb 9th, 2016 via Twitter Web Client)

@ziggamon Thus, business models relying upon smaller txs have inherent long term risk.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

@ziggamon You could argue that “settlement” txns are safest from the economic effects of scaling the system while smaller txs are riskier…

via Twitter Web Client in reply to ziggamon

@desantis Oh, I’m in the middle of my next article. Targeting end of the month.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to desantis

@masonic_tweets Could be the “Fidelity Problem” all over again - LN can enable new use cases that aren’t even viable on-chain.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to masonic_tweets

If Lightning Network creates enough demand for new classes of micropayments, it could more than offset former on-chain txs that move to LN.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

Lightning Network’s effect on scalability will depend on # current on-chain txs that move to LN vs new LN txs that can’t be done on-chain.

via Twitter Web Client in reply to lopp

I worry Lightning Network may be a victim of its own success if it creates huge demand for on-chain transactions to open & close channels.

via Twitter Web Client

@adam3us @reddit that post appears to be by /u/jensuth, which I assume is meant to be a parody of @junseth

via Twitter for Android in reply to adam3us

@gigq @ncpolicelogs @Bitcoin_Win ha, what does that even have to do with Bitcoin…

via Twitter for Android in reply to gigq