Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are all Satoshi
His name was Satoshi Natamoto.
This whole thing feels subtly racist.
Is Craig Wright?
31–40 of 45 posts
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only one of many aspects of the whole block size debate. And I'm not sure there's a lot of merit to this specific aspect. From what I can tell[0], the "computational limit" is primarily in increased bandwidth and storage requirements in running a full node (2.8 GB per day for a block size of 20 MB). While that's not trivial, it hardly limits adoption to institutions like banks. 2.8 GB is about 45 minutes of 10…
Well the 2.8gb is to download all confirmed blocks, say a copy of the blocks added 10 days ago. But the actual bandwidth exceeds that significantly. Both transactions that never make it into actual blocks (like bad transactions or double spends) and blocks that are orphaned are part of the bandwidth too. More importantly, even if you were just sending and receiving the transactions that end up in the final longest bl…
Thanks for the link, seems like the post I was going by was underestimating the traffic quite a bit (though to be fair, they allude to it and it was probably my reading at blame).
That said, I stand by my point that the traffic ("computational") requirements hardly limit running a node to large organisations: depending on where you live, a domestic connection might not do it -- though it very well might! -- but a cheap server hosted somewhere on the "right" side of the last mile will.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#33Here is another test: show your mom this video and ask her whether she thinks that the guy is either a genius mathematician or a con artist http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
I find it weird that he doesn't want anything from this, and wants to be left alone yet he is the one coming out as Satoshi. He could have stayed private, and would have all of what he wanted. So him claiming to be Satoshi seems to be anti to what he is saying he wants.
[deleted]
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#34What do you think Craig Wright gets out of this? I can't imagine him trying to draw investor money five years after letting bitcoin go; everyone knows in startup world ideas matter less than execution and the first bitcoin software was not stellar, by far. Really, what people think his motivation could be.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#35Can you imagine being pulled over by a police officer, and saying:
"I have my drivers license in my pocket, but there's no reason for me to show you. I showed Steve my license 10 minutes ago, and Steve will vouch for my identity"
If you think that's fishy, and don't think this is fishy... consider that in this metaphor, the person pulled over spent a great deal of his life advocating for the use of physical licenses to prove identity rather than social authority.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#36Nice write-up explaining the problems, but the killer for me is a hint as to how others may have been fooled: Note that the antepenultimate line says ‘signiture’ instead of ‘signature’, so the script doesn’t do what is claimed. In particular, it reads the signature from the environment variable ‘signiture’ rather than from the command-line argument. Hence, if you populate the environment variable with your own public…
Without getting into Sicilian poison cup arguments around "I knew they'd think that," I find it hard to believe that someone would go to all this trouble, then innocently publish their magic trick to the world in a screenshot like that. Edit: to be clear, I'm inclined to believe Kaminsky et al that this is a ruse. I just don't think it's that ruse.
It isn't that ruse. I replicated the file that is verified in the screenshots - the ruse is that it contains an old bitcoin transaction from Satoshi rather than Sartre's writings.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#37Here is another test: show your mom this video and ask her whether she thinks that the guy is either a genius mathematician or a con artist http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
He's shady as fuck, the guy is practically foaming at the mouth when he suggests he should be nominated for a Nobel or Turing award.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#38The little-blockians want the block sizes of Bitcoin to remain small, and thus for it to be a pure decentralised currency that can be used by anyone with a computer. This would maintain it as a peer-to-peer currency, but would limit its growth. By comparison, the big-blockians believe Bitcoin should grow into a universal currency, expanding the block size to accommodate absolutely every transaction. The downside is t…
I highly doubt that expanding the block size by a factor of 2 or 4 or even 8 will change it into something normal computers cannot handle. The only reason things don't change is that miners don't change. The control lays with miners, full stop. IIRC, they agreed to some change by signalling a flag in mined blocks. The idea was that at a certain amount of consensus, the new behaviour would activate. Instead, the miner…
The consensus threshold wasn't reached. There was a maximum of 12% support (now there is less than 3%)
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without getting into Sicilian poison cup arguments around "I knew they'd think that," I find it hard to believe that someone would go to all this trouble, then innocently publish their magic trick to the world in a screenshot like that. Edit: to be clear, I'm inclined to believe Kaminsky et al that this is a ruse. I just don't think it's that ruse.
It isn't that ruse. I replicated the file that is verified in the screenshots - the ruse is that it contains an old bitcoin transaction from Satoshi rather than Sartre's writings. https://rya.nc/sartre.html
Very nice writeup!
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the 2.8gb is to download all confirmed blocks, say a copy of the blocks added 10 days ago. But the actual bandwidth exceeds that significantly. Both transactions that never make it into actual blocks (like bad transactions or double spends) and blocks that are orphaned are part of the bandwidth too. More importantly, even if you were just sending and receiving the transactions that end up in the final longest bl…
Thanks for the link, seems like the post I was going by was underestimating the traffic quite a bit (though to be fair, they allude to it and it was probably my reading at blame). That said, I stand by my point that the traffic ("computational") requirements hardly limit running a node to large organisations: depending on where you live, a domestic connection might not do it -- though it very well might! -- but a che…
> a cheap server hosted somewhere on the "right" side of the last mile will.
I think the idea is that if a large majority of the network is on linode, then shutting down Linode would cause the majority of whoever is left being able to dictate what's canon?
Why is 2MB the perfect size? Will we run into the same problems in three years? Or thirty?