181–190 of 287 posts
Huh? You can't claim authorship of anonymous publication. Neither the author, nor anybody else, it's the whole point, anonymous once anonymous forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's interesting, so he didn't see the limits of the system. Scaling tx/s is easy, scaling it without increasing block verification time and cost is what's impossible. So Bitcoin is not exactly what Satoshi planned, but for me it changed my life completely.
Is it even legal to claim copyright on a pseudonymously published work?
I'm more worried about whether a pseudonym can (with legal credibility) place their work under an MIT or other Free license.
IANAL and the legal system is sometimes strange, but there is no obligation to register yourself as a copyright holder.
Craig Wright has done enough to hurt Bitcoin over the years that I effectively think of him as a canary: the fact that he is still walking around is evidence that there are no darkweb assassination markets that are not just scams or honeypots.
It just goes to show that effective assassination markets need to be centralized and corporate, not distributed and anonymous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless satoshi lost his keys lol like virtually everyone else of that cohort.
You think a guy smart enough to give birth to Bitcoin, and maintain complete anonymity while doing so and while communicating in public forums etc, would forget his private key? You just need to remember one seed and suddenly you have billions of dollars of value stored in your brain. I don't think that's a realistic possibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because he didn't expect anybody to do a lot of work to convince him of a basically worthless fact. How long have you spent verifying your own computing platform? However it is, it is never impossible that somebody can corrupt it and fool you about something.
> he didn't expect anybody to do a lot of work to convince him of a basically worthless fact. Being Satoshi seems like the exact opposite of a basically worthless fact. Gavin was just being gullible. Being a good early developer on an important project isn't mutually exclusive with being gullible to social engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
From the same site, mean transaction value is 2.67 BTC ($86,672 USD), so about .1% transaction fee. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction-perce... computes it at closer to 1%. My guess for the difference is comparing total volume vs. approximate real value transfer (subtracting the change going back to the same address).
Comparable to the cost of the card networks but an order of magnitude more expensive than ACH transfers and maybe double the cost of wire transfers.
EDIT: I'm assuming that the profit margin is scarce on average so most miner fees go directly to hardware+electricity. Given the volatile price in USD I don't know a better assumption to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Please specify what you mean by "decentralization". If you want I can explain the classic (fallacious) bitcoin core argument here, which is in essence: some poor person in the 3rd world needs to be able to fit the whole blockchain on their raspberry pi. EDIT: Meeting ended early, so I'll just take this on now. First things first: > Sure, doubling the block size a few times would likely be fine, so Bitcoin may be over…
Keeping it spread out across millions of individual home computers, laptops, and mobile devices is the strongest, and perhaps only defense of that.
If you want to argue, at least argue the real issue, not some strawman.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Without a backlog of high fee paying transactions, Bitcoin mining becomes unstable in the long term when block subsidy dwindles to insignificance, as discussed at [1]. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306354.0
It turns out that many of the big miners have long term contracts with power companies to consumer power; they wouldn't save money by turning their hardware off for short periods of time. Power companies like this arrangement because it lets them predict demand better, and miners like it because they get "bulk rates" on electricity for being predictable in their consumption. The arrangement falls apart when miners turn their hardware on and off.