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

51–60 of 287 posts

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

#51

Post by hanniabu »

Capira wrote: post #28
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #14

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…

> failed to provide cryptographic proof as such That is not entirely correct. Wright provided a forged cryptographic proof to Gavin Andresen and tricked him into accepting.

> forged

So in other words he failed to provide proof

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

#53

Post by bonestamp2 »

mdoms wrote: post #29
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whitepaper is why I view bitcoin’s value proposition as a gold-like store of value. Can you say more about why you think the whitepaper discourages that view?

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.

Not to mention, "safe storage" of that currency for spending. It was literally an escape from traditional banking that was born out of the 2008 financial crisis where wallstreet caused billions in losses.

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

#54

Post by ogogmad »

hanniabu wrote: post #51
Capira wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> failed to provide cryptographic proof as such That is not entirely correct. Wright provided a forged cryptographic proof to Gavin Andresen and tricked him into accepting.

> forged So in other words he failed to provide proof

It's worse than just failing.

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

#55

Post by Scoundreller »

tylersmith wrote: post #42
Scoundreller wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whitepaper didn’t expect/predict most hashing power being controlled by very few actors. Edit: I’d say the whitepaper did expect this and basically said it could be a problem: From the abstract: > As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attacker.

That's a fundamental security assumption made by Nakamoto consensus. It's like assuming the discrete log problem is hard. If/when the assumption doesn't hold the security is gone.

That’s a better way of putting it. It’s a good argument for ASIC resistance and CPU dependence because it’s a lot harder to control General-Purpose CPU supply than ASIC supply.

Meanwhile my regular joe laptop can earn double its electricity cost in Monero (before it thermally locks up).

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

#56

Post by arcticbull »

paulgb wrote: post #48
arcticbull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently about $80 of electricity and goes into each transaction, which is socialized across all holders as inflation. It’s this incentive which keeps miners mining. Once the reward drops to zero, transaction fees will be born directly by parties to the transaction and will have to be high enough to stave off a 51% attack directly.

> Once the reward drops to zero, transaction fees will be born directly by parties to the transaction and will have to be high enough to stave off a 51% attack directly. This is something I don’t see talked about much, but the asymptotic state of Bitcoin when mining fees are zero is interesting to think about. It’s not obvious to me that the economic incentives against running a 51% attack will exist in the “terminal…

Would the economic incentives not remain unchanged as a function of unit price of BTC? It feels like in the terminal state there’s going to be a high stakes game of chicken between attackers and holders to see who’s willing to pay more for control of the whole network. This is likely exacerbated by a move to layer 2 networks to avoid the 7tx bottleneck isn’t it? I’m not sure personally this is just something I’ve been noodling on.

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

#57

Post by lawn »

toolz wrote: post #46
mdoms wrote: post #29

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.

Are those two concepts mutually exclusive? A liquid currency that holds value in unstable economies would seem to serve both the purpose of being spendable as well as a stable investment like gold. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it means to be "gold like" though.

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.

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

#58

Post by spijdar »

toolz wrote: post #46
mdoms wrote: post #29

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.

Are those two concepts mutually exclusive? A liquid currency that holds value in unstable economies would seem to serve both the purpose of being spendable as well as a stable investment like gold. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it means to be "gold like" though.

I'm not sure I'd use as strong language as "mutually exclusive", but to the point: when was the last time you used gold to buy your lunch? Get groceries? Pay for an Uber? Tip someone?

I'm sure someone out there insists gold is a perfectly legitimate currency for day to day life, and it's not 100% incorrect. But gold is very inconvenient to attempt to use for quick transactions. You would typically exchange gold for some other currency to do day to day spending. The same is basically true of bitcoin now as well, which was (arguably) not the original intent at all.

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

#59

Post by lawn »

sktrdie wrote: post #44
lawn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Craig produced a proof on a computer he himself provided. Wouldn't have been hard to alter it to say whatever he wanted to.

Indeed. I think Craig is a fraud. I'm just dumbfounded why Gavin --a person I admire from intial days and who is probably person n.2 after satoshi in terms of bitcoin actual initial lines of code written -- was so easily fooled.

Yeah it's hard to understand. Gavin's good nature of assuming good intentions from anyone is sure to play a big role.

Also worth to remember that anyone can get bamboozled, even if you're highly intelligent and knowledgeable in a certain area. Just look at how many cult followers there are in the world.

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

#60

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

sktrdie wrote: post #44
lawn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Craig produced a proof on a computer he himself provided. Wouldn't have been hard to alter it to say whatever he wanted to.

Indeed. I think Craig is a fraud. I'm just dumbfounded why Gavin --a person I admire from intial days and who is probably person n.2 after satoshi in terms of bitcoin actual initial lines of code written -- was so easily fooled.

Just because people demonstrate remarkable skill or intelligence does not make them immune to the same cognitive biases shared by every human being on the planet. We are all susceptible to being fooled, and a lot more easily than we probably like to imagine.
Post reply on HN