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

241–250 of 287 posts

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

#241

Post by __blockcipher__ »

dieortin wrote: post #73
suikadayo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would need larger blocks, but it was the general understanding within the community before the fork that with Moore's Law, hard disk capacity would increase and price would go down in the future, so it really isn't a big deal, and not enough to cause "centralization of nodes" like some people argue. Also, my understanding is that Lightning Network is semi-custodial, so it's probably more similar to banks than cred…

What do you mean by “semi-custodial”? You’re not giving anyone the keys to your address. It’s nothing like a bank.

Yeah, not sure where they got that.

The problem with the LN is that it's like a gift card (I said credit cards before but gift cards is a better analogy). I need to send $X on-chain to establish my "store credit" so that we can transact off-chain for future transactions, before eventually resolving on-chain at some point in the future.

Imagine network address translation but stupider by orders of magnitude :P

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

#242

Post by xiphias2 »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #231
SkyMarshal wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blockc…

You just described a way to decrease the security of Bitcoin. Users already decided collectively that no amount of security should be exchanged for other features inside Bitcoin. Even taproot, which is a relatively small change takes years to get to a point that it's accepted.

It's like Kosher food: if a small percentage of people want food to be kosher, it's often easer to make all food Kosher.

As Michael Saylor says, Bitcoin is good enough to store hundreds of trillions of dollars. Just don't f*ck it up.

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

#243

Post by __blockcipher__ »

tehjoker wrote: post #238
iso8859-1 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Haha this whole exchange is such a good metaphor for classic academic gatekeeping. Satoshi gave birth to an idea that spawned an entire new type of financial system, with revolutionary implications for the world, and the GP is spending his time arguing that it didn't go through peer review and wasn't published by a real journal and therefore it's not real science :P

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

#244

Post by louloulou »

Thorentis wrote: post #210

He seems like somebody who is very concerned with taking credit for things. And not just in a "hey, I made that!" kind of way, but in a "I will sue people who say I didn't make it. " [0] kind of way. This alone is enough for me dismiss his claims. Satoshi clearly intentionally wanted to remain unknown. It might be a real name, but it likely isn't. There was plenty of opportunity to reveal himself. Now that BTC is sud…

Also here are a bunch of signed messages calling him a fraud using the keys to addresses HE CLAIMED TO OWN IN COURT -_-

https://craigwrightisnotsatoshi.com/

Edit: Explanation/thoughts from Wladimir regarding the removal & future of Bitcoin Core - https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

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

#245

Post by tehjoker »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #243
tehjoker wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Haha this whole exchange is such a good metaphor for classic academic gatekeeping. Satoshi gave birth to an idea that spawned an entire new type of financial system, with revolutionary implications for the world, and the GP is spending his time arguing that it didn't go through peer review and wasn't published by a real journal and therefore it's not real science :P

This kind of thing drives me crazy. Peer review is very valuable, but it was basically instituted to make sure government science grants were not being wasted. It also has a function of keeping crackpots out of the public information stream and increasing paper quality. However, Newton (and "Satoshi", though not at the same level as Newton by a long shot) didn't use such mechanisms but their ideas were eventually accepted (in some fashion) through wide ranging debate.

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

#246

Post by aaron695 »

upofadown wrote: post #228

>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…

> I find cryptographic signatures fascinating in that they didn't exist 50 years ago.

Very new, I think you could even say almost all of computer science pre-dates them.

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

#248

Post by grubles »

uncletammy wrote: post #159
grubles wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gavin admitted he should have been removed because he stopped contributing. Why has HN comment quality fallen so low...

> Gavin admitted he should have been removed because he stopped contributing Citation desperately needed. Here's a contribution from literally the day before he had his commit access stolen. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/006cdf64dc932 Even if he did say that, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Him "no longer contributing" was not the reason his commit access was revoked. It was revoked as a power grab be…

His access was revoked because having unused keys to the Bitcoin code is an attack vector.

Citation here BTW: https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1247592193319198720

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

#249

Post by jrochkind1 »

Loughla wrote: post #152
tedivm wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US it's not easy to commit people- you generally need to prove that they are a danger to themselves or others. Judges just can't randomly commit people against their will, especially if it has nothing to do with the case in front of them. They can hold people in contempt, but that's a whole different thing.

It's not easy to get someone committed long term, in my experience, but startlingly easy to get someone forcefully admitted against their will for a 'short-term' stay, that may (does) turn into longer term care. You need three things: 1. a person who is naturally combative, 2. a wellness check performed by the police, and 3. an underfunded mental health facility. The police show up and the person gets combative, natu…

Also, needs to be a person who does not have family with the monetary and system-navigating resources to try to keep them from getting committed. Poor and/or alone, not able to appear and speak like a "respectable professional", you're fucked.

Or in your example if you have family that wants you to be committed and has money and the ability to appear and speak professionally and navigate beurocracies, oh yeah you're never coming back.

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

#250

Post by IncRnd »

cheaprentalyeti wrote: post #95
vmception wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he failed to produce any keys, the courier with the keys never materialized, the judge has not thrown Craig Wright in jail for contempt of court nor has be been charged with perjury. The judge seems to be mildly entertained by this and views Craig Wright as mentally ill, but won't have him committed. It is all sad and strange. There are a lot of guardrails against using the system this way, but they aren't being…

As near as I can tell they're letting Craig Wright cosplay being Satoshi because it's another useful way of inhibiting Bitcoin's adoption and annoying the real Satoshi, wherever he is out there.

Why do you believe this judge is part of an over-arching conspiracy of powerful but mute people who are attempting to inhibit the adoption of bitcoin through cosplay?

Why wouldn't those super-intelligent, powerful people do something about the actual Chicago based exchange that already trades Bitcoins?

Post reply on HN