yojoots · February 6, 2020 23:00
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 Tweet #1: https://twitter.com/yojoots/status/1225313674631503872
 "The obvious counter is a PoW algorithm swapout. All who have a stake in BTC have commensurate incentive to follow the functional side of the fork."
 The point: if a party has any stake in BTC, they have commensurate incentive to follow along on the branch of any given fork that continues to function.

 Tweet #2: https://twitter.com/evoskuil/status/1225352981811347458
 "Nope." (link to https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Work-Fallacy)
 From the included link: "There is a theory that mining services are subservient... According to this theory miners then suffer a catastrophic loss due to the unrecoverable capital investment in highly-specialized hardware."

 Note: this link, and the reasoning it contains, is not relevant to the point raised in Tweet #1. In fact, Tweet #1 does *not* argue in any way that users can "foist a capital loss" on miners. The link is entirely irrelevant to Tweet #1 and the point that it makes. In other words, it is orthogonal and irrelevant.

 Tweet #3: https://twitter.com/yojoots/status/1225460942277877760
 "What are you saying "Nope" to, specifically? I am not claiming that red-team suffers some catastrophic economic loss or anything along those lines. Please elaborate on what "Nope" is supposed to mean here. Thanks."

 Note: the question asked in Tweet #3 has remained unanswered. Presumably this is because @evoskuil realized that Tweet #2 is irrelevant and fails to address the point made in Tweet #1, but is afraid to admit this fact.

 Tweet #4: https://twitter.com/evoskuil/status/1225509193404354565
 "Until you attempt to support a point you have stated, there isn’t much else to say."

 Note: this is comically ironic, considering the fact that @evoskuil has *still* not supported the "point" that was stated in Tweet #2.
	Tweet #1: https://twitter.com/yojoots/status/1225313674631503872
	"The obvious counter is a PoW algorithm swapout. All who have a stake in BTC have commensurate incentive to follow the functional side of the fork."
	The point: if a party has any stake in BTC, they have commensurate incentive to follow along on the branch of any given fork that continues to function.

	Tweet #2: https://twitter.com/evoskuil/status/1225352981811347458
	"Nope." (link to https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Work-Fallacy)
	From the included link: "There is a theory that mining services are subservient... According to this theory miners then suffer a catastrophic loss due to the unrecoverable capital investment in highly-specialized hardware."

	Note: this link, and the reasoning it contains, is not relevant to the point raised in Tweet #1. In fact, Tweet #1 does not argue in any way that users can "foist a capital loss" on miners. The link is entirely irrelevant to Tweet #1 and the point that it makes. In other words, it is orthogonal and irrelevant.

	Tweet #3: https://twitter.com/yojoots/status/1225460942277877760
	"What are you saying "Nope" to, specifically? I am not claiming that red-team suffers some catastrophic economic loss or anything along those lines. Please elaborate on what "Nope" is supposed to mean here. Thanks."

	Note: the question asked in Tweet #3 has remained unanswered. Presumably this is because @evoskuil realized that Tweet #2 is irrelevant and fails to address the point made in Tweet #1, but is afraid to admit this fact.

	Tweet #4: https://twitter.com/evoskuil/status/1225509193404354565
	"Until you attempt to support a point you have stated, there isn’t much else to say."

	Note: this is comically ironic, considering the fact that @evoskuil has still not supported the "point" that was stated in Tweet #2.