You try very hard to make it look like this is not your website. What do you expect when you start your promotion with a lie? |
|
|
|
In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead.
If Satoshi is dead, we would know about it.Satoshi may not want to reveal one's identity while alive, but dead, why not? All Satoshi has to do is leave a will for one's next of kin revealing the truth, with evidences and pass phrase for his coins. I can quite imagine a shocked lawyer revealing Satoshi will and reading it out in public. There's no way Satoshi, or anyone else who created Bitcoin, dying and not leaving their legacy. History will forever be speculated. It would be a final up-yours to bankers, who are itching to assassinate Satoshi. How would you know about somebodys death, when you know nothing about him, but a nickname? Simple...read this. "All Satoshi has to do is leave a will for one's next of kin revealing the truth, with evidences and pass phrase for his coins." Do you know what the word 'evidences' mean? I suppose your question is rethoric one, so I won't answer it. Many people die by surprise and without preparing their last will. To me it looks exactly like this happened to Mr. Nakamoto. |
|
|
|
In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead.
If Satoshi is dead, we would know about it.Satoshi may not want to reveal one's identity while alive, but dead, why not? All Satoshi has to do is leave a will for one's next of kin revealing the truth, with evidences and pass phrase for his coins. I can quite imagine a shocked lawyer revealing Satoshi will and reading it out in public. There's no way Satoshi, or anyone else who created Bitcoin, dying and not leaving their legacy. History will forever be speculated. It would be a final up-yours to bankers, who are itching to assassinate Satoshi. How would you know about somebodys death, when you know nothing about him, but a nickname? |
|
|
|
|
1PpM1wHT9M4SVvjLatEiqTEzn4tQ9LvC1
You mean "The entire internet went offline" or just Bitcoin (edit: not possible as long as we have the internet)?
Which catastrophe would need to happen to the worldwide internet to go offline?
I guess, we would have other problems than Bitcoin at that moment.
|
|
|
|
|
I told the people around me to buy Bitcoins, when they were 100$. They still thank me for that. Sometimes we laugh about the guys who didn't buy at that point.
|
|
|
|
In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead. However, he fortunately already expressed an opinion about increasing the blocksize before he disappeared: 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 block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Sounds like he was in favor of increasing the block size when it is needed. The only question is: "Is it needed yet?" His quote about blocksize is exactly what core devs should be doing right now. Most of the XT discussion would be obsolete, when intelligent blocksize raising would come into effect. There are enough parameters that could be used to automate the process. Give the people enough time to adapt to the hard fork and anything should be running smoothly. BTW, I agree, that it pretty much looks like SN is dead. I would even say, his death must have hit him by surprise. He had no time to move his coins. What Satoshi is saying in the given example is, if number of blocks is greater than 115000, then maximum block size limit should be increased. He is not telling what the maximum block size limit should be. The point is NOT how Satoshi thought the raising process could be achieved, but that he is pro blocksize raising when needed. He already made his point to the current discussion years ago, so there is no need for him to come back and repeat it. As I already said, there are more than enough parameters to automate the process. Number of blocks is surely the simplest, but it doesn't refer to any needs of the network in the future. For example, size of the blocks itself over a certain amount of time blocks might be a more accurate parameter. |
|
|
|
In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead. However, he fortunately already expressed an opinion about increasing the blocksize before he disappeared: 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 block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Sounds like he was in favor of increasing the block size when it is needed. The only question is: "Is it needed yet?" His quote about blocksize is exactly what core devs should be doing right now. Most of the XT discussion would be obsolete, when intelligent blocksize raising would come into effect. There are enough parameters that could be used to automate the process. Give the people enough time to adapt to the hard fork and anything should be running smoothly. BTW, I agree, that it pretty much looks like SN is dead. I would even say, his death must have hit him by surprise. He had no time to move his coins. |
|
|
|
What does Gavin mean with his sig? Core or XT or something else? Signature:
How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
|
|
|
|
americanpegasus on reddit brings up a good idea about what could be going on with Bitcoin atm: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i4wfx/its_either_going_to_happen_or_already_has/I was reading these words from another topic and I realized that this is exactly what will happen to cryptocurrency if it is deemed as a serious threat to the powers that be.
"The Achilles Heel of any such movement is that it is vulnerable to infiltration, manipulation and domination by charismatic agents placed into highly visible and "authoritative" (media focused) positions, with the specific intent of obscuring the goals, and misdirecting the energy and momentum of the "mob" to render it impotent and harmless.
Occupy Wallstreet was defeated via a "bloodless coup". Certain personalities were injected into the mass to sow discord and disruption. Had the movement progressed further, other strategies would no doubt have been employed wherein agent provocateurs and "firebrands" would have been inserted to initiate violent riots and destruction - thereby tarnishing the image of supporters as "thugs", and giving authorities license to crush the movement with heavy-handed force that would be seen as "justified" by the media-mesmerized masses.
At least this is the technique, which was/is successfully used against a lot of peoples movements worldwide and we have a situation ongoing with Bitcoin, which pretty much looks like an orchestrated attack on Bitcoin, "the peoples money"... |
|
|
|
|
At the moment, the most irritating point about Bitcoin is the XT discussion.
You know, a few month ago I was sitting there, drinking with my buddy in a bar and we all thought Beer was cool, until two jerks came in and tried to explain us, that our Beer will kill us eventually in a few years and if we don't want to die, we need to switch to this new BeerXT, which will safe our lives. We didn't like them and they were sent off the bar. Later they came back with a few paid guys and tried forcing us to drink their XTBeer.
We took them out to the parking lot and kicked their teeth out. They never came back ...
|
|
|
|
|
I trust my offline wallet.
|
|
|
|
No signatures = fake
How about focusing on the content, rather than the author? (Just like with Bitcoin itself) Regardless if it was actually Satoshi or someone else who wrote this, I'd say (s)he makes a very good point. The Author himself seemed to care about making his statement look important by writing it in the name and email of Satoshi Nakamoto. If the content was such a good point, why he needs to do that? Wouldn't the content speak for itself? |
|
|
|
Lets compile a nice list of all the various attackers and professional FUD spreaders whose alterior motives in supporting XT shine through.
meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts
satoshifanclub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
I think the XT project is a manipulation of the price of Bitcoin Not too many people care about price manipulation here. If it was this only, you wouldn't see XT topics popping up like soda. |
|
|
|
If it seems like the limit is getting hit persistently, and confirmation times are becoming a problem, an emergency limit increase is something that the core devs can patch very simply and quickly. They can execute such an emergency block size “QE” if you will, at a moments notice. They have demonstratively done this kind of deployment before, during the one previous hard fork, and with the F2Pool bug. So what is the rush? That's my question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154636.0 |
|
|
|
Nick Szabo is asking the same: If it seems like the limit is getting hit persistently, and confirmation times are becoming a problem, an emergency limit increase is something that the core devs can patch very simply and quickly. They can execute such an emergency block size “QE” if you will, at a moments notice. They have demonstratively done this kind of deployment before, during the one previous hard fork, and with the F2Pool bug. So what is the rush? |
|
|
|
|
It all makes sense when you assume, that SR2 was built as a honeypot from day 1.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and this is the other guy:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
