Live data from Hacker News

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

bitcoin.org

231–240 of 287 posts

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

#231
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 sta…

Yes, and we’re already seeing exactly what happens with bigger blocks from Ethereum. The entire thing is being run on Consensys’s centralized Infura servers on AWS. It’s not even decentralized. This is an unavoidable physical constraint given Bitcoin’s architecture. You can either prioritize decentralization (and with it, censorship resistance), or you can prioritize TPS or in Ethereum’s case heavy-weigh smart contra…

Everyone having a copy of the whole blockchain is not needed. What you need is sufficiently distributed hashpower that no actor can perform a 51% attack. That's all.

Small-time users can use thin wallets; mega-power users can download the whole blockchain and spend whatever (in perspective, not super significant) amount of money they need for sufficient storage. Users in between can carry a reduced form of the blockchain that doesn't care so much about a full transaction log but accurately describes the state of every wallet's balance (thereby functioning the same from a "verify that they're not bullshitting me" perspective).

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Satoshi did actually see those limits and discussed them in the early days on Metzdowd and Bitcointalk.org. But he covered his bases and allowed for both big data centers and/or layer 2 architectures to solve that problem. I’m don’t recall if he expressed a strong preference for one over the other, though.

Could you please point to me where Satoshi discussed using "layer 2 architectures" to handle the scaling problem? To my knowledge he always talked about scaling from the perspective of every transaction being published to the blockchain, because that's how the whole system works.

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

#233
post #102

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.

> 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.

Nonsense, he absolutely thought about scaling and in his head it was quite simple...because it was. You just need blocks big enough to allow the transaction throughput the world requires, but they need to be a finite size. That's all.

Not sure what you mean about "block verification time" having a scaling problem. It really doesn't.

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

#234
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 sta…

Yes, and we’re already seeing exactly what happens with bigger blocks from Ethereum. The entire thing is being run on Consensys’s centralized Infura servers on AWS. It’s not even decentralized. This is an unavoidable physical constraint given Bitcoin’s architecture. You can either prioritize decentralization (and with it, censorship resistance), or you can prioritize TPS or in Ethereum’s case heavy-weigh smart contra…

While I agree with you on everything, and I'm all in on BTC as a store of value, I love some of the contracts that are built on top of Ethereum. Uniswap is an example system that should be implemented in Bitcoin as well over time, as it brings transparency to trading and asset ownership. It doesn't need turing completeness (so gas is not required), though as it needs state management, I think it's important to be able to account for the cost of UTXO created.

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

#235
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they aren't mutually exclusive. In fact sound money should be both a good store of value and a medium of exchange (in other words work well for payments). The problem is that Bitcoin's high fees has made it unsuitable for regular payments, so proponents only have the store of value explanation left.

Exactly this. To me it was proof that 99% of the Bitcoin community (such as the Bitcoin subreddit which had an absurd amount of influence, thus why taking it over and censoring discussion was so effective) didn't care about Bitcoin as a currency and had never once used it as a currency . They just bought it on Coinbase and never even transferred to their own wallet. Meanwhile people like me who actually cared about u…

> Meanwhile people like me who actually cared about using the damn thing, would be paying a $60 transaction fee on a $20 purchase simply because the powers that be decided that increasing the blocksize, (aka increasing the arbitrary global transaction throughput cap) was somehow antithetical to bitcoin's decentralized design.

Big blocks would have never solved this issue, and you're still free to use Bcash, but you won't as no one does... because that wasn't the issue.

Second layer solutions are the crux of that story, and people who didn't or wouldn't understand that were vocal non-tech people (like Roger Ver) who don't understand basic network protocol topology and why things need to run on secondary, tertiary etc... layers on Bitcoin (the Network) that uses bitcoin (the token) to validate your $20 tx on the blockchain, which by the way if you paid $60 for goes to show you never understood Bitcoin the network.

No one would sacrifice that much to miners instead of just opting for fiat at that point unless there was an absolute imperative need to do so, which at $20 is clearly not the case. I should know I did it.

I've been in this for a long time and the only time tx fees were above $20 was when the Bcash fork happened and Ver/Jihan spammed the network. I paid $25 tx fee on behalf of a new customer (merchant I just on-boarded) that was panicking because they didn't understand mining fee priority (I did explain it to them) and thought they lost they money, when in reality the 5 sat/byte tx cleared in a weeks time and I just recovered my funds then.

I discussed it and felt absolved of responsibility but rather than lose a potential client I just begrudgingly paid the mining fee, to Antminer/Jihan no less, which added insult to injury.

This is far from ideal, and I have a stuck tx as we speak (2sat/byte were clearing without a problem until then) for a over a week now, but it just goes to show that these new billionaire class investors (Saylor) don't understand this tech at all and that they need to use their new found fortune to help flesh out LN to get it to function to its full potential without all this mempool bloat they've help create.

Mainchain (layer 1) is doing EXACTLY what we would think would happen under these conditions even after Segwit, its purposely this way as this is the trade off for security, which makes it less than ideal as a settlement network for small, low cost, individual transactions.

That's what LN is for and I wish these instituinal investment firms would understand that, to date only Jack Dorsey (an actual technologist/developer) has funded Lightening labs, while the Winklevoss, Saylors of the World just keep trying to compete for more headline grabbing media attention and ignoring this vital issue as they do not understand or care to take the time to learn this very obvious fact.

As for me, I want them to keep doing this as it gives me a better buy-in position so I'm all for it.

PS: Keep downvoting, but a 2.58 tx fee cleared in less than an hour with 5+ confirmations, thus proving my point. I think we're far from the bloat we saw back then proving Segwit worked as expected and block sizes weren't a viable option nor tenable a solution to our problem, which I sincerely remains one of LN progress .

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

#236

>Furthermore, Satoshi Nakamoto has a known PGP public key, therefore it is cryptographically possible for someone to verify themselves to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 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 tha…

> 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.

The fundamental difference is the medium not the properties. People can sign papers with false signatures and be erroneously identified as the actual party. That is why there are notaries, to authenticate the identity of the signer, subject to trust in third party documentation.

For example, people steal houses by signing false quit-claim deeds. Signatures on paper do not have any positives properties over cryptographic signatures.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a hollywood interpretation at all, Satoshi created something that was an existential threat (at least long-term, in terms of the doors it opened) to fiat currencies / fractional reserve banking more broadly. It's not farfetched to see that certain government organizations would want to disrupt that, or at a minimum gain control over the founder to be able to direct things how they please. Regardless, intelli…

> It's not a hollywood interpretation at all, Satoshi created something that was an existential threat (at least long-term, in terms of the doors it opened) to fiat currencies / fractional reserve banking more broadly. At its most charitable, the underlying economic theory you're supposing is out of mainstream. To the extent that it's a Gold Standard version 2.0, though, it should be pointed out that the kind of main…

If you can't see why Bitcoin is a threat to the status quo such that it could theoretically justify "Deep State Operatives" trying to either outright stop it by murdering the founder or compromise and neuter it by taking over the project, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not saying anything about how likely it is or isn't, just that it's a theoretical possibility that someone in Satoshi's position would be considering.

And I find your dismissive references to absurdities like Q-Anon to be wholly inappropriate and a cheap shot.

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

#238

TF even if he is Satoshi, scientific papers belong in the public domain.

What makes it qualify as a scientific paper? It has only 8 references, less than papers published around the same time It was self-published, not subject to peer review It has no proofs It has errors: https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf...

The content is scientific in nature and it spawned an entire field of research. The quality of the paper is of course debatable as are the ideas contained within.

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

#239

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…

As transactions grow in BCH, wouldn't it need larger and larger blocks? I think larger and larger blocks would centralize the nodes. Edit : Also, I don't think the Lightning Network behaves likes the credit card networks. What do you mean when you say that?

Please specify what you mean by "the nodes". As I've discussed in other comments, the whole "full node" concept is basically made up and absurd; the security and therefore decentralization of the network is provided by miners. The network is only truly "centralized" if a faction gains a sufficiently large portion of the hashpower to perform a 51% attack.

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

#240
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Craig worded this nicely 2 weeks ago here https://youtu.be/_E7iuVM4CIA?t=2133
Post reply on HN