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

151–160 of 287 posts

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

#151

Post by garmaine »

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.

Yes. There is strait up clear evidence of his fraud.

The tricks he used to convince Gavin were revealed later and shown to be fraud—he used slight of hand to reuse a historical block chain signature rather than produce one.

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

#152

Post by Loughla »

tedivm wrote: post #109
jrochkind1 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be an entirely different judge in a different case that would have to have him committed, not a judge in a lawsuit in which he's a party, no?

In the US it's not easy to commit people- you generally need to prove that they are a danger to themselves or others. Judges just can't randomly commit people against their will, especially if it has nothing to do with the case in front of them. They can hold people in contempt, but that's a whole different thing.

It's not easy to get someone committed long term, in my experience, but startlingly easy to get someone forcefully admitted against their will for a 'short-term' stay, that may (does) turn into longer term care.

You need three things: 1. a person who is naturally combative, 2. a wellness check performed by the police, and 3. an underfunded mental health facility.

The police show up and the person gets combative, naturally. The police then swear the person is a danger to themselves and/or others. The person is committed, short-term, for evaluation. During this evaluation process, the person refuses to follow prescribed treatments; in an underfunded facility this treatment is generally accompanied by powerful psychoactive drugs, that most people, especially naturally difficult people, will refuse. Then comes long-term care.

Now, I know it's not the context of a judge ordering it, but it really isn't that difficult to do.

Source: you wouldn't believe the things I have seen in my career in higher education. Some people and especially controlling families are truly, absolutely, evil.

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

#153

Post by rlt »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #75
uncletammy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They removed the whitepaper about as fast as they removed Gavin Andresen's commit access once they found justification. There are a lot of bad things you can call the BTC core devs but they sure as hell seize every opportunity to grab power.

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…

I’m not ideological about this, but I don’t understand how it’s not obvious to anyone technical that Bitcoin can’t simply keep increasing block size to meet global/mainstream demand for payments without eventually sacrificing decentralization, which is the only characteristic of Bitcoin that makes it valuable.

Sure, doubling the block size a few times would likely be fine, so Bitcoin may be overly conservative right now, but I firmly believe any long term solution will require some form of “layer 2” for payments.

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

#155

Post by Stevvo »

MattGaiser wrote: post #127
scarmig wrote: post #122

There is this constant thread of seediness to the point of absurdity running through Bitcoin that makes it look like a joke that everyone is in on except the suckers buying into it. Which makes it hilarious for an observer... though I guess I don't get to laugh all the way to the bank, which is a fitting punchline.

I have to wonder if a lot of this is straight up money laundering. Were there seriously billions of dollars worth of gullible people buying ICOs and every random alt coin a few years ago? On Reddit, there are tons of spammers selling "copy trading" services. Are there actually customers for that?

In the ICO boom, I worked on many of their products.

For the most part, everyone from the CTO to contractors like myself knew the business plan was terrible and the founders were as deluded as the investors. We were just trying to extract as much money as possible from these companies before they went under.

It worked. I was earning anywhere from $400 to $5000 an hour.

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

#156

Post by gruez »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #75
uncletammy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They removed the whitepaper about as fast as they removed Gavin Andresen's commit access once they found justification. There are a lot of bad things you can call the BTC core devs but they sure as hell seize every opportunity to grab power.

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…

>But for normal usage-as-a-currency, I am a huge believer in XMR (monero), which masks who you're sending money to

There was a talk[1] a few years ago that basically argued that this property only really holds if you look at individual transactions in isolation. It basically boils down to: if you make one transaction to a darknet market, it's impossible to know whether you were actually sending to a darknet market, or whether that was just a decoy transaction. However, if you make repeated transactions to a darknet market, the chances that all of your transactions had a darknet market decoy approaches zero, and you'll be considered suspicious. At that point the police can get a warrant to search your house, or put surveillance on you so they can catch you slipping up irl.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s3EbSKDA3o core argument starts at around 10 minutes.

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

#157

Post by GoblinSlayer »

Scoundreller wrote: post #76
sedeki wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a hardcore bitcoiner, but the price would fall quickly if these few controlling nodes would do something malicious. Which is against their own interest.

Probably. But a core aspect of decentralization is that you shouldn’t need to trust a few others at all.

Who cares about technicalities, the point was to let people hold the system in their own hands.

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

#158

Post by jonathanaird »

chabes wrote: post #119
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?

He’s stated his reasoning many, many times. Legally speaking, keys do not prove identity. They prove access to keys which can be stolen. He’s making an intentional point to prove it in a court of law as a part of his bigger point that Bitcoin exists within existing legal frameworks and was not created to evade the law. Quite the opposite, it was created as a system to provide immutable evidentiary trails.

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

#159

Post by uncletammy »

grubles wrote: post #130
uncletammy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They removed the whitepaper about as fast as they removed Gavin Andresen's commit access once they found justification. There are a lot of bad things you can call the BTC core devs but they sure as hell seize every opportunity to grab power.

Gavin admitted he should have been removed because he stopped contributing. Why has HN comment quality fallen so low...

> Gavin admitted he should have been removed because he stopped contributing

Citation desperately needed. Here's a contribution from literally the day before he had his commit access stolen.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/006cdf64dc932

Even if he did say that, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Him "no longer contributing" was not the reason his commit access was revoked. It was revoked as a power grab because he wanted to and had the power to increase the block size. Nothing more.

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

#160

Post by Stevvo »

arcticbull wrote: post #16
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #14

This is so bizarre. For those that aren't aware, Craig Steven Wright has publicly claimed to be Satoshi but failed to provide cryptographic proof as such, and uses his supposed identity as Satoshi to justify having a bunch of sketchily-acquired Bitcoin (I forget the full details here, it's been years). Even someone without much prior knowledge should be able to trivially deduce that this guy is a fraud: - The real Sa…

The real satoshi is probably Paul Le Roux, and currently in federal prison. > He had a fairly compelling paper that argued that Bitcoin's proof-of-work model was not some inefficient, climate-change-inducing wasteful system, but rather was a system that incentivized private firms to invest in the security of the network (resistance to double-spend, etc). Well that’s obviously and trivially wrong so... I mean you can’…

I'd say claiming Satoshi is Paul Le Roux is obviously and trivially wrong when there is much more evidence pointing at Nick Szabo.
Post reply on HN