It's still a pretty big "if".  Journalists have been trying for years now and still haven't had any success.  It's also worth considering that most reporters probably lack the knowledge and understanding necessary to carry out such an investigation.  We all remember Dorian when a journalist "found" satoshi because "hey look, it's the same surname".  If this example is representative of the pinnacle of everything the media are capable of, I'm pretty confident they're not going to be the ones who unmask Bitcoin's creator.  

Even if we take into consideration all the forensic blockchain analysis certain companies are doing to monitor and track Bitcoin transactions, that would still be largely ineffective in tracking down the real satoshi because satoshi wasn't known for sending many transactions.  If some of the sharpest minds in crypto have tried to figure who satoshi is for ever a decade and the answer is still not known, then we'll probably never know.  Many of the people in crypto wouldn't want to unmask satoshi anyway.  Beyond simply wanting to respect their privacy in acknowledgement of the gift they've given us, there's also the safety implications to consider.  If the world knew who satoshi was and the wealth they possessed, it would paint an enormous target on not only their back, but the backs of their family as well.  They would almost certainly become targets for harassment by criminals.  So it stands to reason that those who would be most capable of identifying satoshi would generally prefer not to do that conclusively, because it would be a dick move and they would be putting innocent people in danger.

And finally, it doesn't matter who anyone publishes a story about claiming they're satoshi.  There are only theories and coincidences.  Never any substantial evidence.  Many people still won't accept whatever "proof" is given unless it's a cryptographic signature from an address satoshi is known to have used.  There have been too many impersonators for people to take it seriously now.

Worry about more important things.  It doesn't matter what theoretical price an article would cost to read if the article in question is total BS.

There have been numerous discussions about the possibility of decaying the airdropped merits over time.  The tricky part is all the accounts from the early days of Bitcoin which are no longer active.  The contributions people make to a project in its infancy often has a larger impact than someone contributing to a well-established project.  Some of those users, due to the nature of network effects, did more for Bitcoin adoption than any user could ever contribute now, so it would be disrespectful to deprive them of their rank.  

If we did implement decay of airdropped merit, I think it would have to be tied to activity.  For example, if an account is completely inactive, there should be no decay.  They would effectively have an honourary rank.  But if an account's activity is increasing, then airdropped merit can decay over time.  It's the only way to do it fairly.

I don't get the sense from the article that the author is saying BTC markets can be shut down (aside from any on Robinhood, of course).  The main commentary just seems to drawing parallels around the price surge and the part where some institutional investors have left themselves in a precarious position with shorts that are currently losing them money.

They posted this with their other account, so I'm guessing it's that.

It does once again raise the question as to whether our markets are genuinely capitalist or not.  Apparently it should only be a case of "let the market decide" when it suits the establishment.  If hedge funds are gambling recklessly to the point where they risk bankrupting themselves, I'd say this outcome is their own stupid fault.  If they hadn't taken dumb risks, it wouldn't have mattered if Reddit was plotting against them or not.


//EDIT:  Facebook have subsequently shut the Robinhood Trader's group:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/29/facebook-shuts-popular-robinhood-stock-traders-group-amid-gamestop-frenzy

The establishment is apparently a bit flustered and looking to put the kibosh on this uprising.

They won't really be comparable.  I still think CBDCs won't even resemble a cryptocurrency in the sense we're accustomed to.  The infrastructure will be entirely different and I'm fairly certain they won't appeal to the same audience as crypto does.

People often give me the impression they think a CBDC will be something they can send to an exchange and use it to trade with like they do other coins.  I don't personally see that happening.  My suspicion is we'll see the shortcomings of a total lack of censorship resistance right away, when people discover their bank won't allow them to send payments to an exchange using such a platform. 

Except that central bankers didn't oversee the overall security of the fiat system at all.  They oversaw the corruption, overt recklessness and utter mismanagement that led to an ongoing global financial crisis.  What reality is he living in?   

There's a small chance Bitcoin might not even exist if it weren't for the magnitude of their failure to keep commercial banks in check.  What other response, besides Bitcoin, could there be to the bankster's wild casino playground?

Lots of places think they're aiding adoption by having a Bitcoin ATM in their store, but it would be far better if more small companies could start accepting Bitcoin directly in exchange for goods like this place is.  Sadly, it will involve some extra effort on behalf of the store proprietors to do that in most jurisdictions, though.  If you're not using a payment provider to convert it to your national currency right away, you'd probably need some decent software, like BTCPay Server or a really good accountant to sort out the bookkeeping side of things.  Small businesses have to be careful there, because they are an easier target for regulators and governments for tax enforcement compared to individuals.

No one is going to make money listening to a misinformed gibbering idiot like you, so you'll need to rethink that plan.  You clearly have nothing of value to offer because you don't know anything.  There is no money in what you are doing right now.  You need to stop posting completely until you have attained enough knowledge and understanding to make coherent posts.  Are we clear?  Remain silent until you can pass for someone in possession of a functioning brain.  Just read and learn for now.

I sincerely doubt that would help.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they already have more than one account.  Due to their unique posting style, they are likely to be recognised pretty quickly, no matter how many new profiles they create. 

Not literally.  We are all satoshi in spirit if we believe in the principles Bitcoin was founded upon.  Craig Faketoshi Wright doesn't have principles of any kind, let alone the ones enshrined in Bitcoin.

They seem to be keeping that a closely guarded secret.  We're all wondering the same thing.  Which is why I'm thinking it might just be a smokescreen to appease the suits.  If no one can figure out how they're doing it, they might not actually be doing it at all.

Or maybe it's a token gesture like "we maintain a blacklist of addresses we won't process transactions for", which is almost completely ineffective when people can just generate a new address for each transaction.

 

That's genuinely amusing.  A few points:

a) None of your paltry number of SV devs are talented enough to create true regulatory compliance within your forkcoin's codebase.  Pretty much all they do is copy code from Bitcoin and fiddle with it a bit. 
b) Even if they were gifted coders, you still can't force regulatory compliance upon those who don't want it.  Anyone who doesn't wish to adhere to compliance will simply run different code. 
c) Regulatory compliance defeats the purpose of having a censorship-resistant distributed ledger.  If you want to have a system where someone in charge can block your payments, just use a bank, stupid.
d) You didn't answer the question.  What does any of your ideological authoritarianism and shortsightedness have to do with faketoshi and his mindless lawsuits attempting to prevent distribution of a document that is clearly intended to be freely shared?

It depends on your outlook.  You don't just earn for yourself, you earn money for the company, Brave Software.  The CEO of Brave has expressed certain views that some may find bigoted, intolerant and prejudicial.  By using Brave, you might end up inadvertently funding someone who would openly discriminate against you or people you care about.  If you believe in supporting the rights and freedoms of others, consider finding an alternative to Brave.

Providing there are enough people who understand the technology, it doesn't really matter how many profit seekers come and go.  For all the false claims people try to make, Bitcoin still adheres to the founding principles of open source, permissionless freedom and finite supply.  I don't foresee that changing any time soon.  We don't lose anything of value when the people who don't appreciate those principles fall by the wayside.

It's also likely that many of the people who originally came seeking profit decided to stick around once they learned more about the technology. 

Topic derailment in the Development & Technical Discussion subforum is frowned upon, so continuing the off-topic discussion here:

A user has disingenuously queried why Bitcoin's overall transaction capacity is lower than other coins.  The answer is simple.  In practice, the other networks in question process fewer transactions than Bitcoin does, even though they have the potential to process more.  There is a cost to be paid to broadcast all this transaction information to other users on the network, so it stands to reason that users running nodes for other chains have a smaller cost to bear.  Overall throughput in Bitcoin will increase only if/when those who secure the chain are prepared to carry a heavier burden.  

---

* PROTIP:  If you're going to throw down the gauntlet, try to make it a challenge your opponent hasn't already completed. *

Is your cognitive impairment so severe, you can't recall that I have explained this to you already?  The coins you refer to do not come close to utilising their full capacity.  If they did, the fees would not be as cheap as they currently are.  If the blocks on those chains were consistently full over a period of several years, the total size of the blockchain would be larger than Bitcoin's, meaning there would be very few, if any, non-mining nodes to enforce consensus rules.  This would make a chain highly susceptible to corruption due to weak network governance (as already explained in that D&T topic before you got it locked).  

You say Litecoin has 4x the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, but if we look at today's figures:

Litecoin Transactions avg. per hour   2,524
Bitcoin Transactions avg. per hour   11,878

So in reality, Bitcoin actually processes 4x the number of transactions Litecoin does.


The novelty of highlighting your profound mental deficiencies is starting to wear thin.  Why don't you stick to what you're good at?  Which is peddling proof-of-stake detritus that no one cares about in the altcoins boards.  It's obvious why you continually attack Bitcoin with your intellectual dishonestly.  Only problem is, your ability to create false narratives is feeble at best.  If you genuinely believed that non-mining full nodes are not crucial for the continued health and stability of Bitcoin's network, then you would merely be a fool.  But instead, I'm going to work on the assumption your posts are, in fact, malicious.  You can't honestly maintain the contradiction that mining centralisation in Bitcoin is a problem when your arguments against non-mining full nodes would only give miners greater influence to weaken the protocol by implementing undesirable changes.

I don't know if you're spouting idiocy because you simply want to expose your ignorance, or if you're genuinely trying to convert anyone with your abject drivel, but I don't think anyone in the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, of all places, is going to fall for it.

Network governance is either something you don't understand or fail to appreciate the significance of.  Part of the security we're talking about is the strength of the network to resist implementing terrible ideas that would weaken it.  If there were solely SPV users and miners, it would be far easier for corruption to set in and allow pools to collude and force undesirable changes to the protocol.  Non-mining full nodes prevent that.   If you can't comprehend the part where running a full node is an enacting of will where you quite literally enforce rules by rejecting any blocks that don't adhere to the requirements denoted within the software, then don't bother commenting because you just sound like an imbecile.

Can't help but notice you're totally avoiding the issue where your messiah is taking legal action against the distribution of MIT licensed documentation.  Are you simply too embarrassed by his actions to comment on that?  Do you worry it will reflect badly on you?  I'd say that's probably a legitimate concern.  Given that you're an unabashed faketoshi mouthpiece, I hold you equally culpable in perpetuating this farce.  You're as much a lowly piece of filth as Wright.

Based on the proposals I was seeing at the time, I'm not convinced of that.  If we had taken any static blocksize increase, that still wouldn't have been a "solution".  There was always more work to do later.  The reason an adjustable blocksize/blockweight wasn't implemented at the time is because no one could guarantee that their proposal at the time was safe from manipulation.  I was following them all rather closely.



Except that's wrong.  At the time of writing, the last block mined was 1468.97kb.  That's 468.97 we didn't have before.  Or, put another way, a ~47% increase over the old 1mb blocks.  People need to stop pretending that we haven't added additional capacity.

If your eyesight isn't great, Meinl cymbals sometimes look a bit like a BTC from certain angles:



Unless it's just me, which is possible.