- Jameson Lopp issued a challenge to the cryptocurrency community on Twitter to define Bitcoin.
- The challenge elicited both sarcastic and realistic responses.
The cryptocurrency community on Twitter is usually pretty vocal about any opinion that they have, but Jameson Lopp has issued a challenge. According to The Next Web’s Hard Fork, the cypherpunk decided to challenge the community with a task – explain Bitcoin with the 280 characters that Twitter allots to users.
Explain Bitcoin as completely as possible in a single tweet.
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) June 1, 2019
There has been a few responses that are a bit more genuine, like this one:
A global, neutral payment network that allows anyone on earth to transact a huge or tiny amount of value with anyone else within minutes, without needing to ask permission from a government, without disclosing one’s personal information, and without the possibility of censorship.
— Alex Gladstein (@gladstein) June 2, 2019
However, there were others that chose the sarcastic route, as Bitcoin Core developer Eric Lombrozo said that Bitcoin is defined as “free Internet money that will make everyone rich.”
Bitcoin is free Internet money that will make everyone rich, automatically solve ethics without any effort on our part, cure cancer, and bring about world peace
— Eric Lombrozo (@eric_lombrozo) June 1, 2019
As the other creators in the crypto realm of Twitter caught wind of the challenge, they started to issue requests for their own communities to define their tokens. Alejandro De la Torre asked his community to define Bitcoin Cash “as completely as possible,” and it is clear that other people are taking on the challenge. However, the responses they received were hardly all positive.
A protest movement based on various conspiracy theories, often revolving around the misconception that Bitcoin Core developers control Bitcoin and have been corrupted by Blockstream and/or other outside influences.
— Aaron van Wirdum (@AaronvanW) June 2, 2019
It is worth noting that the actual differences between Bitcoin and the derivative networks – BCH and BSV. If anything, the block size limit is the most notable of any of these differences. The block size determines how much data can be used in a single block, and it has earned a substantial amount of controversy through the last decade.
Another user, Zack Voell, asked Crypto Twitter to chime in on why small blocks are necessary to the network, using the same limitations as the request for Bitcoin’s definition. Some responses were helpful, while others were more critical.
Transactions sent on L1 must be verified by all nodes. The more txs, the more resources required to run a node. Without a small enough blocksize, the resource burden will increase until there are few enough validators that the network becomes vulnerable to political control.
— Mario Gibney (@Mario_Gibney) June 1, 2019
Oh really lol
How about Satoshi never designed small blocks
The blocks are supposed to be full of tx with fees
Very very lucrative for the miner
Very secure and fast for the user
This is bitcoin
Have a nice day
— Paul (@paulee_paul) June 3, 2019
Presently Right now, the blocks from Bitcoin’s ledger are not meant to go beyond 1MB, though they have the capacity to reach 4MB. Even blocks that add up to 32MB in size are capable of being added to the blockchain for BCH, and the BSV blockchain even aims to make it possible to accept 128MB on the networks.
Some of the Twitter users were inspired by the cryptocurrency posts with other ideas – ranging from requests to define the meaning of love to explaining what the TSA does. As far as the original request regarding Bitcoin’s definition, Hard Fork believes that there appears to be a winner found – Jack Eldridge.
— Jack Eldridge (@JackScottE) June 2, 2019
Like what you read? Give us one like or share it to your friends