Live data from Hacker News

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

bitcoin.org

251–260 of 287 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

[deleted]

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

#252

Bitcoin slow descent to zero? Or buying opportunity before the next moonshot?

no way to tell for sure, but the stock to flow model has been pretty accurate over the years and it projects around $90k+ by year end ... institutions like PayPal are buying directly from miners, others are applying with SEC to buy BTC for their funds ... price looks shaky, but the big players seem confident in the fundamentals

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#253

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.

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 a…

I think you may have missed the whole S2X vs UASF battle. There are multiple important reasons for non-mining full nodes to be validating the whole chain and not just their own transactions.

Having many independent observers seeing the entire chain and detecting problems or attacks against it, facilitates coming to consensus out-of-band about what's happening and what to do about it. It's the ultimate check-and-balance.

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

#255
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bitcoin mining uses hydroelectricity, that doesn't emit CO2.

Yeah, no, it simply does not. Citation needed.

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

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that /r/btc lunacy has made it's way to HN

Excellent, yet another stream of text that must occupy my information grapevine to define a virtual value system utilized by people who are not creative enough to park their economic gains as deployed assets. One BTC is currently a post-tax yearly salary, a third of a tractor, at least one Bridgeport CNC lathe, 12 metric tons of cold rolled 304 stainless coil, or two springtime paid internships for folks out of high…

Downvoted without a counter. Point proven.

To be fair, I have only listed available assets - not a plan. This is the source of the 7 furrowed brows.

World of Warcraft "gold" is worth more than the Venezuelan Bolivar.

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

#257

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…

A real Satoshi could have lost his key, like many people lost their Bitcoin wallets. A fake Satoshi could possess the keys, by stealing or by receiving them in gift etc.

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

#259

I am the only one who thinks Craig Wright is the writer of the Bitcoin whitepaper and the original developer? I understand why it is controversial and doesn't fit the bitcoin myth. And I don't find him particular symphatic. But he convinced Gavin Andresen and in general has the background of someone who could build this and do the writing that followed on various mailing lists and discussion forums.

you're not alone. it's pretty obvious when you care enough to listen to him directly talking about bitcoin, economy, law, history... There's a lot of quality interdisciplinary information coming from him, that makes infinite more sense than anything anybody else says about bitcoin. you just have to understand his aspergers manierisms, but for me it's clear he's the real deal, despite all the vicious fud coming from interested parties.

It's a shame that even in HN people aren't immune to the shallow crypto propaganda...

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

#260
post #13

As for why the Bitcoin Core developers were so quick to do this, the whitepaper has been a thorn in their side for years as it runs counter to the argument of Bitcoin being "digital gold" and should just be a settlement layer. So they saw this as an excuse to remove it.

They removed the whitepaper about as fast as they removed Gavin Andresen's commit access once they found justification. There are a lot of bad things you can call the BTC core devs but they sure as hell seize every opportunity to grab power.

I'm the reason why Core removed Gavin's commit access, as I pointed out that he doesn't use it, he was bamboozled by Craig, and in fact Gavin himself agreed that it should've been done long before just as a security measure.

The FUD on here is always surprising voluminous.

Post reply on HN