[deleted]
Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
281–290 of 294 posts
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#282Given his history as a prolific liar, I find his post to be utter bullshit. Note how he's still lying about things he was caught at: "When the rumours began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false". NO - it was established (with confirmation from the schools in question) that he lied about having a PhD from Charles Stuart U. and he definitely does not possess 8 masters…
[deleted]
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd read of that elsewhere but wasn't sure. Here's to hoping both countries have adequate agreements to facilitate shipping him back home to face the music.
The UK does have a history of shipping criminals off to Australia... In all seriousness though, I hope he does get sent back to Australia. Everything he's done fits with someone who is grasping at anything that might get him out of has last con, and unfortunately for him, his last con involved a government organization that will want its money back.
He will not be sent back... the British loooove providing refuge t o dodgy characters. Even better if they have money, ill gotten or otherwise.
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/06/15/lalit-modi-sushma-sw...
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#284Humans are not monkies and never were. It is believed that the two species shared a common ancestor at some point. Edit: If someone has evidence otherwise, please post.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11636167 and marked it off-topic.
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#285I'd be willing to bet that the coins will move soon.
I will take your bet, what would you like to wager?
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#286The note is terribly sad. I hope he has people around him to support him.
He defrauded the Australian government by claiming R&D grants and then pocketing the money. Millions of dollars.
He's a criminal.
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#287Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most damning: Seven transaction a second. You cannot have a functioning financial system that is constrained to seven transactions per second.
So when you say that for a "fact" the system is constrained to 7TPS, you are intentionally ignoring most bitcoin transactions, which are off-chain transactions at exchanges. That's not just oversight that's deceit.
Weird, I don't see side chains in specified in the protocol or implemented in the source. It's almost as if side chains are an ad hoc attempt at a solution to a problem inherent to Bitcoin.
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't contributing anything to this conversation. You're misrepresenting what I said and you're even responding with a flippant "Lol".
You're demonstrating confirmation bias by trying to redefine a payment network flaw as a "tuning parameter", so if you want to actually discuss something, make a case rather than spinning it as something else. I find your comment funny because it reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/whnms4CLJys?t=44s
A clip from The Simpsons is not a very compelling argument.
Setting the number of blocks at 2,016 per two weeks is completely arbitrary, as is setting the block size at 1 MB. None of these are "fundamental flaws" because they can be changed. They're hard-coded constants that can be changed in code in a trivial amount of time. The hardest part about changing them is getting consensus on the change and the time it takes the change to roll out to most of the clients on the network before cutting over. The existence of altcoins that have changed these parameters is proof that it's not a technological flaw.
A technological flaw would be some kind of vulnerability in ECDSA or SHA256 that would allow people to spend other's Bitcoins. Now that would be a fundamental flaw that would destroy Bitcoin over night. But coding constants that can be changed, and as time goes on, most likely will be? You are seriously over-dramatizing things.
All I'm getting from you is flippancy, Simpsons references, and strawman arguments. You have failed to make your case at all. If what we are talking about is a fundamental flaw, then every program you have ever written is fundamentally flawed, because I'm sure they've all initially had bugs in them that were much worse than what could be changed by adjusting the values of constants.
Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're demonstrating confirmation bias by trying to redefine a payment network flaw as a "tuning parameter", so if you want to actually discuss something, make a case rather than spinning it as something else. I find your comment funny because it reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/whnms4CLJys?t=44s
A clip from The Simpsons is not a very compelling argument. Setting the number of blocks at 2,016 per two weeks is completely arbitrary, as is setting the block size at 1 MB. None of these are "fundamental flaws" because they can be changed. They're hard-coded constants that can be changed in code in a trivial amount of time. The hardest part about changing them is getting consensus on the change and the time it take…
The simpson clip is an explanation why I find your comments hilarious, not a claim or basis for an argument. Serious question: is English your first language?
The block size can't be changed because a small number of miners control it, and they stand to profit from the increased transactions fees resulting from the increased competition on smaller blocks. It's tragedy of the commons.
This is a fundamental flaw with Bitcoin- that the people who control the software can also benefit from inhibiting transactions per second. For a payments network, it's not going to get more than 7 tx/s, until someone else is in control. Other enthusiasts have reconciled this by looking to bitcoin as smart contracts, or to side-chains.
But you can continue to spin this as good for bitcoin or as "payments tuning parameter" propaganda if you like, just understand that I'm going to laugh at you for it, cydeweys.