To be honest we have no idea if he actually does. But perhaps Charlie Lee himself, the developer of Litecoin (LTC) and owner of the “@Satoshilite” Twitter handle, can answer the question “Does SatoshiLite love fireworks”? At the same time, perhaps he could give an opinion on the explosion he caused?
In the midst of the recent Ethereum Classic (ETC) 51% attack, social media was awash with “experts” eager to comment and judge. Debates raged about the timing of the announcement that attack was taking place, with some accusing Coinbase of knowing about the attack 2 days before announcing it and actually allowing it to continue. Other debates centered around the validity of Ethereum Classic as a coin due to it having resulted from a fork in Ethereum. Others even pointed to the warnings made in the summer of 2018 that ETC was even back then susceptible to a 51% double spend attack.
However, one tweet had caught our attention, and had us asking each other in the office if Satoshilite loves fireworks? With the tweet having been posted on the 7th of January, most of the new year’s fireworks had been lit long ago. Perhaps Charlie Lee wanted more, or perhaps, as is often the case, an innocent comment on social media simply caused an unexpected explosion? In either case, we would love a clarification from the man himself. As such, if you read this Charlie Lee, we would love to hear from you.
The tweet in question:
In the thread in which Coinbase announced their discovery of the 51% attack, discussion raged about proof of work coins being susceptible to this sort of attack. The twitter followers of many cryptocurrencies flocked to the thread to offer their opinion, and the traditional debates ensued. Stalwart of the #XRPCOMMUNITY and something of a tech specialist Galgitron pointed out that XRP couldn’t be attacked in this way, and quickly faced the traditional arguments XRP faces in response. One of the responses came from the owner of the twitter handle CryptoTesla who stated that “If it can’t be 51% attacked, it isn’t decentralized.” and this is where Satoshilite joined the party:
Whilst it is clear that this is simply a retweet with comment stating that he found it to be an interesting observation, discussion, and dare I say, mis-understanding ensued. From their responses, it is clear that the majority took the tweet to mean that he was making this statement. Perhaps some missed that he was commenting on the statement made by the original poster, perhaps he knew that it would be missed, or perhaps he added text to the comment to confirm his agreement with it? Whatever his intention, cryptotwitter exploded in response. Many chipped in with the traditional “You sold your Litecoins at ath” argument, some suggested he was either drunk or stoned, some agreed, and as usual, people shilled their coin of choice over the topic at hand.
One user C3|Nik actually referenced back to one of Charlie Lee’s earlier controversial posts which we have attached below and which reminds us just how much Mr Lee seems to love courting controversy.
I thought the argument that it "has to be slow and expensive in terms of transaction fees to be worth something" was ridiculous enough.
And then came the: "If it can’t be 51% attacked, it isn’t decentralized." argument. 🤓
— C3|Nik (@C3_Nik) January 8, 2019
As we mentioned at the start, we would love to know his intentions as he has not responded to any of the tweets in the thread. Do you just love fireworks, do you genuinely believe the statement about decentralization that was made, or was your tweet misinterpreted, and did you hope for a more fruitful debate on the topic? Let us know via DM if you would like us to facilitate your response here at Wise Cryptos, or in a tweet, or just let us know if you want it to remain open to debate.