wow is all I can say too.

I am sure Warren Buffet does and pays good money for security.  You do know kidnapping, extortion, and ransom existed prior to the blockchain right.  The issue here is that this "Satoshi" may not be the "Satoshi" and thus doesn't have the resources to pay for that kind of protection from every nutjob and sociopath who sees him and his "million bitcoins" as a ticket to the easy life.

Still it is possible to use multi-sig to provide the same level of limited access to bitcoin wealth that applies to bank funds.

BittBurger's complaint is still valid.

This is basic transaction handling (I mean freshman year computer science).  I might be called an ass, or trying to put down a competitor but anyone who got that wrong has a host of other things wrong as well. 

Anything financial should be ACID compliant.  With full transaction support and rollback capability not just at the data layer but all the way through the application stack.  Period.  It isn't a suggestion, or a preference.   Allowing the state of the database to become corrupted like that is just negligent.  Can you imagine if an ATM worked that way?  You make a copy of your card and you and your friend use the ATM at the same time and double your money?  Or an organized crime syndicate does it with 10,000 people and turns $400 checking account into $4M?

Occam's razor time.  Do you think Satoshi (creator of Bitcoin) would have trouble unsubscribing from a mailing list?
Newsweek ruined this man's life for nothing.  



https://www.mail-archive.com/sslivesteam@colegroup.com/msg09756.html

Yes all transactions would be perpetually unconfirmed (in this utterly impossible scenario).

Good thing there is no voting in a consensus system.   You can fork Bitcoin, it would be trivial.  So why don't you do it?

All nodes validate transactions, even those who don't mine.  So I assume you mean who will put transactions into blocks?   Mining IS building the blockchain.  No miners = no blocks = no confirmations (which isn't the same thing as validation) for transactions.

You didn't try very hard to educate yourself did you?

Nice backtrack.

It means what you entered wasn't a complete bitcoin address (last digit cut off?) and because it was too short blockchain.info was looking for a first bit address that matches it.

The other possibility is that blockchain.info is broke!

Where do you get 13M from and no unless you are calling me a liar it won't go to zero.  I will buy all the unbought coins at the first recorded exchange rate (1,309.03 BTC per dollar) even if every coin on the planet was sold it would only cost me <$10,000.  I think the network is worth many magnitudes more than that so yeah I would buy em all.

So standing open order from me.  I will buy Satoshi (and anyone else's) coins for 1,309.03 BTC per dollar in the event Satoshi sells them.

that is a potential outcome but currently the existing bitcoin network has no support for partially signed messages.  So today the partially signed messages need to be relayed out of band.  There is nothing that would prevent the protocol from being extended to support a new "PartialTx" message.  It wouldn't even be a hard fork as older nodes would simply ignore them.  There are some potential DDOS and spam concerns.  Current anti-spam rules operate on the assumption that nodes will only relay tx which will eventually confirm (and thus have a cost to the attacker).  An attacker can choose to never complete partially signed messages and thus could spam/attack/degrade the network.   There are some potential solutions but it is a problem which needs to be considered carefully.

Nonsense.  The network would still have value and people would be insane to not buy at a fraction of a penny.  I tell you what since you are "worried" about it going to zero, if Satoshi dumps them all I will buy any unbought coins at the first recorded exchange rate of 1,309.03 BTC per dollar.  If we guestimate that Satoshi has one million coins that would be a grand total of $763.93 to buy them all.

See it won't go to zero.  Of course I will never be able to buy that low, but now you can stop panicking about it going to zero.

Someone lives in that house.  You don't see how made up or not, desperate people thinking the person at that house has $1B in irreversible, untraceable money might lead to something bad.

Well if the story is true the train company just filed for bankruptcy (they just don't know it yet).  Also I feel sorry for "Satoshi".  It doesn't matter if the story is correct or not something bad will probably happen to him.

The forbes article is down but the referenced Newsweek story is up:
http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html

I really hope it isn't him because if it is then his life is going to become a living hell.

Um isn't this exactly how multisig works?

Except the network on the left and right will both be the bitcoin network and the missing piece is a protocol message to relay partially signed transactions.

There really is no more point in discussing it because you simply lack the proper understand of how bitcoin works.  It doesn't work the way you think it does and you can't fix something you don't understand.

I will leave you wish
a) SPV clients have copy of all block headers

b) there is no such thing as "balances" at an address.  Bitcoin works on the concept of inputs and outputs.

c) you say you will "carry forward" the balance into a new block but what happens when an attacker simply publishes a chain which contains unspent outputs that nobody has the historical records to validate anymore.  can you say unlimited minting?  With the current trust model an attacker with >51% hashrate is limited in what they can do.  Under your system they could simply extend the blockchain far enough that most nodes no longer have the historical records to validate a "old" tx placed in a new block ever existed.  The attacker could destroy Bitcoin through unauthorized minting.  

d) "The transactions containing them can simply be moved automatically according to some strict rules that I don't care enough to come up with"  That is why you have no proposal.  "Um yeah we can do this stuff but it will require some stuff but I don't really fill like saying the stuff but if you don't agree with me you are jerks and just trolling.  We can fill in the stuff later and stuff."

I won't be responding again, you can't provide a proposal when you can't even speak the language.   At appeared at one time you were interested in actually learning how Bitcoin really works but that is obviously not the case.  If you have no interesting in actually learning how the system you are trying to "fix" works then don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

The bad news his "explanation" is nonsense so either
a) he is a scammer and looking to just string you along to bring in more marks before it becomes obvious
or
b) he is utterly incompetent and has no idea what he is doing

either way that is not a good sign.

Satoshi already created a 100% trustless solution to this called SPV.  It allows lite nodes to be instantly online and download from peers only the portions of the blockchain they need in real time. Install client and you are instantly ready to start transacting.  Your "solution" doesn't work but even if it did would be inferior to SPV which is something Satoshi came up with before the blockhain even started.


No you don't or you wouldn't make mistakes like saying "transactions which are spent" or the one you just repeated below.  You also would have realized the SPV clients exist.


This isn't in a vacuum that property only applies because for a given tx, the tx, and everything that is needed to validate that tx is also deeper in the blockchain.  You can't throw that away and then assume the same dynamic is in play.

Any system which is not 100% trustless is inferior to the system we have now.   Why would you want to make the protocol worse.  The only way space ever becomes a concern is if Bitcoin becomes many magnitudes larger which means an economy valued in the hundreds of billions if not trillions.   Any amount of trust when the payoff is that large will be at risk of compromise.

If Bitcoin "gets to that point" true proposals for a ledger system will be given more weight but true proposals actually address the risks rather than just pretend they don't exist.   You haven't proposed anything other than drop all method of verifiy a transaction, throw it into a new block at the head of the chain and hope nobody abuses that.  That isn't a proposal, that is nonsense.

Pruning is very likely to keep the storage requirements modest.  It is likely Bitcoin will never need a ledger snapshot system but if it did it would require more thought that what you propose.  Still the true bottlenecks to transaction volume are node bandwidth and memory.  You are trying to "fix" the bottleneck which isn't a bottleneck while consuming resources on the actual bottleneck.