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

161–170 of 287 posts

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

#161

Post by tromp »

phkahler wrote: post #116
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?

The famous ECDLP or Elliptic Curve Discrete Log Problem, upon which a large part of Bitcoin's security rests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography#Ra...

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

#162

Post by zadler »

153791098c wrote: post #114
sktrdie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

What are some good subsequent steps after the barely sociable vid?

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

#164

Post by throwaway4good »

garmaine wrote: post #151
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.

Revealed how? By Gavin Andressen or Craig Wright?

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

#165

Post by gruez »

toomim wrote: post #102
xiphias2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi couldn't have thought of a solution of the scaling issues, just like Mark Zuckerberg didn't design Facebook for billions of people originally. From the paper it's clear that he would have liked if all people could have access to P2P layer, but it's just technically impossible.

That's not entirely accurate. His solution was to increase the block limit [1], and use faster computers [2]. Note that Bitcoin Cash is currently implementing this, and succeeding at scaling to 1,100 tx/sec on testnet. (Bitcoin Core supports 3 to 7 tx/sec.) [1] "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that bloc…

>That's not entirely accurate. His solution was to increase the block limit [1], and use faster computers [2].

This doesn't address the storage requirement problem. 15M transactions per day * 250 bytes per transaction = 1.369 TB per year. After a year most home users wouldn't be able to run a full node without shelling out for extra hardware. After 10 years you'll need to spend hundreds on hard drives just to get started. Sure, it's still decentralized in the sense that you can still run a node, but it'd be closer to usenet (users connecting to independent server farms) than what we have now.

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

#166

Post by bidirectional »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #163

Huh? You can't claim authorship of anonymous publication. Neither the author, nor anybody else, it's the whole point, anonymous once anonymous forever.

There are multiple ways one could prove themselves to be Satoshi. He has known public keys, bitcoin wallets, email accounts etc.

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

#167

Post by SkyMarshal »

_jal wrote: post #67
sktrdie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is usually easier to con smart people. Or in the alternative, being a bit thick can provide protection against fast talk.

Also book smart vs street smart. Gavin is book smart, but not street smart. Street smart people don’t get taken by conmen with flawed cons.

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

#168

Post by aeturnum »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #163

Huh? You can't claim authorship of anonymous publication. Neither the author, nor anybody else, it's the whole point, anonymous once anonymous forever.

As they point out, the paper is not anonymous. It is pseudonymous. "Satoshi" is a person or persons whose communications are validated through a public key (Qanon folks take note). Anyone claiming to be Satoshi can simply sign something with the associated private key and prove they were involved with the identity.

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

#169

Post by dane-pgp »

rlt wrote: post #153
__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…

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…

It's true that long term adoption will likely require "layer 2" solutions, but it's the worst form of "premature optimisation" to deliberately limit "layer 1" and force users into a single "official" proposed solution.

A better approach would have been to let the block size scale in line with average connection speeds and storage capacities (per dollar), and let multiple competing groups implement different "layer 2" approaches that users can opt in to.

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

#170

Post by tromp »

gruez wrote: post #156
__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…

>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, o…

That is a weakness of decoy based systems. This chart [1] shows how various blockchain designs offer different tradeoffs in privacy leaks versus scalability.

[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart

Post reply on HN