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

211–220 of 287 posts

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

#211

Post by insertnickname »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #188
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s not core’s argument. Core’s argument is that the more centralized mining and validation becomes, the easier it can be shut down by govt decree, or to regulate away privacy protections. 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.

Who's running a full node on their phone?

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

#212

Post by __blockcipher__ »

chill1 wrote: post #71
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. BIP39 mnemonics ("seeds") were not around in the early days. Bitcoin core software g…

I see. Very interesting! I wasn't involved that early so wasn't aware :)

Anyway, my general point stands, just s/remember a seed/store an encrypted file

Personally I think Satoshi is either dead or never going to move his bitcoin.

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

#213

Post by __blockcipher__ »

SquareWheel wrote: post #196
betterunix2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe his house burned down and he had failed to keep offsite backups. Maybe he never made backups in the first place and his hard drive failed. People make all kinds of mistakes, sometimes very costly mistakes.

And plus, who knew it would grow so big when things were just getting started? For all we know it was used as a test of the program rather than a real account.

Satoshi, Hal Finney, etc were very aware that it at least theoretically could become the world's primary transaction system. Indeed it was that insight that motivated Satoshi to make Bitcoin in the first place.

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

#214

Post by __blockcipher__ »

skywhopper wrote: post #129
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.

That wouldn’t really mean anything. If he is Satoshi, he may have lost the keys. If he has the keys, that doesn’t mean he is Satoshi, it only proves that he has the keys.

Anyone who has the keys is Satoshi, for all intents and purposes. The problem is no-one has the keys (at least publicly).

Satoshi has never revealed themselves. That's because they're either smart enough not to, or they're dead.

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

#215

Post by Thorentis »

arcticbull wrote: post #17
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.

Unless satoshi lost his keys lol like virtually everyone else of that cohort.

If CSW was genuinely Satoshi, he would be humble and genuine enough to admit he simply lost the keys. He would also acknowledge that there is no way for him to prove he is Satoshi, but that that is his own fault for losing the keys. Instead, he is engaged in childish lawsuits and actual fraud (his PhD, the backdated keys). Not the moves of somebody like Satoshi.

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

#216

Post by Capira »

ogogmad wrote: post #54
hanniabu wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> forged So in other words he failed to provide proof

It's worse than just failing.

Exactly. By trying to fake a proof Wright increased the odds that he is not Satoshi.

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

#217

Post by __blockcipher__ »

rlt wrote: post #197
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A Raspberry Pi is extreme, but again, I’m not talking about a few block size doublings. “Visa scale” is on the order of 1000x Bitcoin’s current capacity. The other argument I’m familiar with is longer block propagation times lead to more orphan blocks, which is a centralization pressure. EDIT: responding to your edits: > layer 2 payment solution which essentially will force transactions to route through centralized m…

By "small payments" do you mean less than $1000?

A payment system's fees need to be 1-2% at most to match credit cards. I remember fees going as high as $80 for a transaction back in the day, so that means you could only reasonably use bitcoin for a minimum of $1000-$10,0000 when fees were the worst. But in reality, Bitcoin can be .000001% (I put a random number of zeroes don't take it literally).

Additionally you're trying to "protect the blockchain" by having people never able to use it. Surely you see the absurdity.

If Bitcoin ever hit Visa scale, there'd be no problem with only well-capitalized miners maintaining a full chain. It's really not an issue, but frankly you should cross that bridge when we get to it anyway. In actuality Bitcoin was hard limited at 3-7 transactions/sec for no reason whatsoever.

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

#218

Post by Melting_Harps »

lawn wrote: post #201
153791098c wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After you watch the socialy bareable video it would probably make more sense. Makes it pretty clear that adam is satoshi (i would say with a 99% certainty). Adam says completely different things about bitcoin today than satoshi did all those years ago. It's not definite that he was compromised but him taking back control over the project with blockstream and the direction he steered it in makes it pretty clear to me.…

Adam Back? The guy who said we should use "tabs" instead of Bitcoin while we waited for Lightning Network to be finished? I'm not kidding, here's the talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHc81OL_hk4&feature=youtu.be...

> Adam Back? The guy who said we should use "tabs" instead of Bitcoin while we waited for Lightning Network to be finished?

While I don't claim to know that Back was involved in the creation of Bitcoin, it's also really hard for me to understand why many people think Satoshi was just one person after all this time.

If anything Hal makes more sense and has way more circumstantial evidence if it was just a single person, but even then I don't think it matters much who was/were the thing we refer to as Satoshi Nakamoto and is actually a cool part of the mythology we've created over the years.

It's like something you'd expect from a Neal Stephenson or Daniel Suarez Book.

Because in the end, they don't matter anymore; it's gone so far from the original codebase that its entirely academic and quite honestly incredibly uninteresting in comparison to everything else that has been accomplished in this community. Though I argue much more could dhave been done if we didn't have to be derailed by this kind FakeToshi BS drama we so all too often in Bitcoin.

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

#219

Post by __blockcipher__ »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #188
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s not core’s argument. Core’s argument is that the more centralized mining and validation becomes, the easier it can be shut down by govt decree, or to regulate away privacy protections. 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.

Not quite. Their argument is based around running "full nodes", which is made-up term for a non-mining node that stores a full copy of the blockchain. (There's nothing wrong with having the whole chain, but the fallacy here is that "full nodes" don't protect the network, it is miners that secure the network and it is miners who decide what transactions to uptake)

It's all moot though, because introducing sidechains and the lightning network destroys the value of Bitcoin in a perverted attempt to save it from a non-existent problem.

> Keeping it spread out across millions of individual home computers, laptops, and mobile devices is the strongest, and perhaps only defense of that.

No, because Bitcoin was built to be resilient to Sybil attacks, that's why it's proof-of-work and not proof-of-stake. So it doesn't matter if a million people in Africa have the whole blockchain on their raspberry pis or laptop or whatever, because all I need is one ASIC mega-farm in Antarctica and I can double spend attack the network into oblivion.

It's hashpower that protects and secures the network, nothing else. This is one point that the fraud CSW actually got right.

Post reply on HN