221–230 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> the Satoshi hoard of coins which haven't moved (ever) What type of math problem has to be cracked to claim that stash?
Basically you have to crack hard crypto. With key lengths long enough and no mathematical weaknesses discovered in the algorithm it could easily take until the heat death of the universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The whole idea in their heads is that nodes will "validate" transactions. Which doesn't make any sense because it's the person engaging in a transaction (on either end) that cares about the state of the blockchain, not some random neutral third party. Your full node can detect an invalid transaction all day but without a way to tell the guy who's about to treat that invalid transaction as valid, the utility isn't there.
No, the real threat to the Bitcoin network is and has always been that a hostile actor would get 51% hashpower (or almost 50% but not quite and roll the dice until they won a few blocks in a row) and issue double-spend attacks.
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.…
And yet you can explain Adam Back/Bitcoin Core/Blockstream's actions much more simply as them being insidious actors that wanted to take over the Bitcoin project in order to promulgate propaganda supporting ridiculously high transaction fees so that they could establish a for-profit company to extract the delta between how high the fees are and how low they need to be for bitcoin to actually be usable. Sending a mess…
Also even if he didn't create it, why did he never contribute to or interacted with the project? Why did he create a company that would make something he always wanted to create unusable? He even put this on his wikipedia page in 2007: "He has an interest in privacy technology, electronic cash (of the payer and payee anonymous type)..." and yet he is completely absent from bitcoin from 2009-2013 and sets up a company the completely defies everything that he wanted to create for years? It's completely illogical.
I know most of these arguments are from the video but come on. He is the perfect candidate. And i think you will not get much better evidence when someone doesn't want to be publicly known to be satoshi. But sure there is no 100% conclusive proof so believe whatever you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The failure to raise the block size limit is the very reason bitcoin has failed as a currency. The main people against against raising the block size limit were blockstream and bitcoin core devs. A competing client to Bitcoin core which supported a block size increase was Bitcoin XT. At one stage it had 50% of the market share, until nodes running XT started getting DDoS'd. Then the censorship began, any posts about…
Block size argument has absolutely no relation to Bitcoin failing as a currency. Block size is some weird inside baseball argument that has little real world validity. Truth is, Bitcoin was never in a position to even fail, because it never succeeded in being a currency. Bitcoin only really got any attention because of Silkroad. Without the darkweb market place Bitcoin would be a fun little internet toy. You can see…
You just refuted your own argument. Bitcoin got attention because of its utility as a currency, in this case for illicit drug purchases. Now as soon as I have to pay an $80 fee, it ceases to be useful as a currency (except ironically for illegal drugs, if you had no other option - which is not the case btw because you can just use monero or bitcoin cash - some users would still pay a 50% fee to get their illegal drugs)
> but they have nowhere near the amount of currency transactions to legitimately call it a currency
What the hell is your definition of currency? A currency is whatever people use as a currency, and by that definition BCH or what have you is absolutely a currency. And fortunately you can send a transaction on-chain for 1 satoshi per byte, instead of having to use a stupid side chain / lightning network pseudo-solution
> instead one side got upset and created a hard fork at the next opportunity. Then attempted to call themselves Bitcoin, knowing full well they didn't have the hash rate and subsequent proof of work.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Within a protocol, the "real" chain is the longest chain. But when a hard fork occurs it splits into two different universes, where BCH people don't recognize BTC as valid and vice versa.
Frankly the software ignorance of so many shows when they discuss this topic of forking. It's worth nothing that the "soft fork" vs "hard fork" distinction, while somewhat real, is part of the whole Bitcoin Core propaganda belief system; they believe that there must be some arbitrary "legitimacy" to a hard fork (where legitimacy is defined as who can shout the loudest after having conveniently censored all the sane people out of the room).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Grubles! Question: How do you think people will use BTC in the future? Do you think people will ever be able to buy coffee with it?
No, because people don’t use highly volatile speculative assets for everyday transactions. But I know you’re referring to the transaction fees, and it would only be fair to point out that the cost of a lightning transaction is a few cents.
Or you use a functional cryptocurrency that don't have these ridiculous limitations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
But looking into what happened in 2015 with the introduction of blockstream, the core devs and the small block campaign. The massive censorship on all major bitcoin discussion platforms. introduction of RBF. the rise of Bitcoin XT and later classic and unlimited. The major signalling for Bitcoin Unlimited by businesses and miners and its subsequent DDOS attack. The segwit proposal with the subsequent Segwit2X proposal. The NY and Hongkong agreements. The BCH fork (and subsequent SV fork if you're interested in that side). The activation of Segwit and the UASF and anti S2X campaign. The complete narrative change shifting to digital gold, SoV and scrubbing anything related to the title of the whitepaper (p2p electronic cash). and so much more interesting stuff, much of the info can be found on reddit's /r/btc that has been scrubbed from other parts of the internet. warning: many info you will find on the subject will be biased one way or another so try to get info on these topics from different sources and make up your own mind.
I find cryptographic signatures fascinating in that they didn't exist 50 years ago. They are a completely new discovery. The long term implications are not yet clear.
They are fundamentally different from the paper and ink signatures they are named after in that they can give an entirely anonymous person a consistent voice over a long period of time. This is a great example of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only need to read the first couple of sentences of the whitepaper to understand that it was primarily designed as a digital currency with a focus on spending/transacting.
"In this sense, it's more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes. As the number of users grows, the value per coin increases. It has the potential for a positive feedback loop; as users increase, the value goes up, which could attract more users to take advantage of the increasing value." - Satoshi https://p2pfoundation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
But fwiw the technology does exist now to do that, just in another protocol: