Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

bitcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 287 posts

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#111

Post by ddtaylor »

sktrdie wrote: post #33
aftbit wrote: post #15

If Craig Wright was Satoshi, he would be able to sign a statement proving that with the keys from the genesis block. Otherwise, he's just an obvious fraud.

A while ago he (this Craig Wright fraud) actually sat with one of the first people behind bitcoin development Gavin Andresen. Gavin was the main developer in the beginning chatting with satoshi in the forum. There was a video of Gavin saying that Craig proved to him that he was satoshi. But later seemed to have been part of some kind of social engineering - wasn't totally clear how he proved he could sign the keys. R…

AFAIK this is probably the same trick he attempted to use where he took a signature from the blockchain and used it. The signature would be of a hash of a transaction, but it would appear as a "valid" signature from that wallet public key.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#112

Post by throwaway4good »

I am the only one who thinks Craig Wright is the writer of the Bitcoin whitepaper and the original developer? I understand why it is controversial and doesn't fit the bitcoin myth. And I don't find him particular symphatic.

But he convinced Gavin Andresen and in general has the background of someone who could build this and do the writing that followed on various mailing lists and discussion forums.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#113

Post by dylkil »

kordlessagain wrote: post #90
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience in the community years ago, Bitcoin Core was a very insidious group of people that seized control of Bitcoin from within, obtained control of the Bitcoin subreddit and started banning anyone with even the most reasonable objections. They started promulgating this absurd notion that Bitcoin was a "store of value" exclusively: that is to say, was not intended to be "peer to peer electronic cash" (as…

Lots of "they" in there and very little substantive evidence of who "they" actually are and what actions were connected to other "theys" involved. I'm not saying there isn't a group that is in tighter control of the codebase, but given the code they produce is independent of the actual data (the blockchain) I'm ok with that as long as others audit their work and then talk about it publicly (which they do): https://tw…

>Lots of "they" in there and very little substantive evidence of who "they" actually are and what actions were connected to other "theys" involved.

This [1] is a good recap of what happened

[1]https://hackernoon.com/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-ti...

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#114

Post by 153791098c »

sktrdie wrote: post #44
lawn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Craig produced a proof on a computer he himself provided. Wouldn't have been hard to alter it to say whatever he wanted to.

Indeed. I think Craig is a fraud. I'm just dumbfounded why Gavin --a person I admire from intial days and who is probably person n.2 after satoshi in terms of bitcoin actual initial lines of code written -- was so easily fooled.

He probably wasn't fooled, or actually, he got screwed by both sides. He knew CSW wasn't satoshi, also he knew adam back was satoshi but couldn't tell anyone because of the NDA he signed (adam had long been compromised at that point). I think he felt the only way to save the project was to point to someone else being satoshi that did believe in the original bitcoin = p2p cash narrative, but that obviously backfired. Craig also did a complete 180 on his 'beliefs' and made everything he touched proprietary, patented and anti-freedom and privacy. Hard to believe that happened without any external influences as well.

The history of bitcoin is a very interesting one. The video series of unmasking satoshi nakamoto from barely sociable is a great first step into the rabbit hole. But i'm warning you, the deeper you go the weirder it becomes.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#116

Post by phkahler »

Nursie wrote: post #8

Isn't this guy literally billions in the hole to the estate of someone he claims was his partner in creating BTC, and who is co-owner of the Satoshi hoard of coins which haven't moved (ever)? Did that court case ever finish or is he still using every trick in the book to draw it out? (Kleiman v. Wright, that's what I'm thinking of) (Looks like it got kicked back to June this year due to covid)

>> the Satoshi hoard of coins which haven't moved (ever)

What type of math problem has to be cracked to claim that stash?

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#117

Post by qwytw »

krupan wrote: post #82
arcticbull wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only spoiler is that a pro Bitcoin source is going to extreme levels of mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable use of an entire countries worth to electricity to write 7 entries per second into the worlds slowest and least efficient database.

Bitcoin would be an utter failure if it sacrificed security in order to gain speed and efficiency. And make sure to compare how much energy (including the entire military, police forces, FBI, etc.) is used to secure US dollars.

There were 285,418 bitcoin transactions* in the last 24 hours, bitcoin energy consumption is estimated to be around 76.87 terawatt hours per year, which is 0.210603 twh per day.

So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price worth paying...

*according to https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#118

Post by 153791098c »

Scoundreller wrote: post #24
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whitepaper is why I view bitcoin’s value proposition as a gold-like store of value. Can you say more about why you think the whitepaper discourages that view?

The whitepaper didn’t expect/predict most hashing power being controlled by very few actors. Edit: I’d say the whitepaper did expect this and basically said it could be a problem: From the abstract: > As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attacker.

Satoshi did predict just that, even before he launched the network (in 2008).

    “At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.”   – 2008. 
    “At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.” – 2010.
    “The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don’t generate.” – 2010.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#119

Post by chabes »

throwaway4good wrote: post #112

I am the only one who thinks Craig Wright is the writer of the Bitcoin whitepaper and the original developer? I understand why it is controversial and doesn't fit the bitcoin myth. And I don't find him particular symphatic. But he convinced Gavin Andresen and in general has the background of someone who could build this and do the writing that followed on various mailing lists and discussion forums.

There’s a simple way to verify his claim, yet he has yet to do so. Why, if he could, would he not?

And why would the opinion of a single person (Gavin, or anyone) be relevant to wether or not Craig’s claim is factual?

Post reply on HN