lets please avoid the lame kardashian drama 'who is satoshi' distractions of the roundtable. and lets ask, discuss and look into the real question that should be asked: what actual proposals of bitcoin code changes, features and demands were discussed at the round table coindesk has made a summary http://www.coindesk.com/blocked-block-size-bitcoin-basics-satoshi-roundtable/any other sources and info? which would help the community know whats been said and suggested during their closed door meetings Sidechains[altcoins] considered
That's not to say that the discussion didn't provide advances.
In conversation, prominent technologists seemed increasingly interested in testing scenarios in which a sidechain[altcoin], or a blockchain featuring bitcoins pegged to the main blockchain, would be used as a way to extend the tech's functionality while preserving its core.
Under this scenario, the bitcoin blockchain could theoretically support a separate blockchain[altcoin] that would have different features, such as say, an 8MB block limit
The discussion focused on two particular sidechains[altcoins] proposals introduced in recent months, though which had not been broadly been considered as potential ways to achieve scaling.
However, there was acknowledgement that other factors needed to be refined (such as how the sidechains[altcoins] would be secured). Also notable is that the idea would require the addition of new code to the bitcoin protocol by way of a soft fork, meaning miners would still have to signal support for the upgrade.
Conceptually, however, the idea seemed to have support, and a potentially broad appeal.
One attendee summed up the idea:
"The people who want things to stay the same can keep everything. For people who want large blocks, you don't have to schedule a hard fork."
funny part is if an altcoin can cope with 8mb.. then all the "internet cant cope, nodes cant cope" rhetoric just got destroyed, because obviously there is no node/internet issues if an alt can do it.. so just let bitcoin itself have the capacity starting at a rational dynamic beginning of say 2mb and naturally grow, knowing 8mb is possible. especialy knowing that they deem altcoins/node/the internet can cope with it.. |
|
|
|
|
more trolls trying to keep this 'event' active for a month or two. to distract us from talking about the code changes.
so that we dont ask what esle was talked about at the round table.
so lets just divert this topic.
what else was talked about at the roundtable. what have the devs proposed to do for the corporations that turned up at the all-inclusive weekend.
let the social drama sit to the side and ask the real questions about the roundtable
|
|
|
|
I think you watched "Person of interest" and took it serious  I have some ideas about something but I can't file a patent or register my invention it's rather in a theory phase anyways but I wanted to know if I could somehow use the blockchain to timestamp an encrypted version of my idea and in the future I could provide a private key to extract the data and decrypt it to prove I'm right, but who will accept such data? legally I mean. putting the whole document on the blockchain is alot of bloat. not advised because you are limited to how many bytes per output. so it ends up as having lots of outputs to get the whole document encluded.. but even satoshi in 2009 converted a short message to hash that he then put into an 'OP_return' output. https://blockchain.info/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b?show_adv=true"�� EThe Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks " as you can see by this website that translates the hash back to ascii http://coinsecrets.org/other examples are https://blockchain.info/tx/819b7e8999e101db63f0e68fca91afcabf53ea7a74872bbd0d020df18ad2178b?show_adv=true'j<hellow Idid send you ,adn are you fine,I love you fromJapan' people either write a short message or add a url or a files hash (metadata) this has been possible since day one, but not advised to get everyone to use bitcoin as a message store. and especially not advised to do multiple outputs to store whole documents though this is what people have termed 'proof of existence' years ago, to show that data/idea/concept existed at a certain date by adding a reference to the data into bitcoins blockchain. |
|
|
|
stupidity of Blockstreams puppets is incredible, their dullness is really unlimited. What do you hope to obtain from these filthy insinuations?
see how simple this drama can escalate to meander with simple name calling.. funny part is when someone pokes the bear by making an insinuation. the other side reacts. then the bear poker can play the victim card. endless kardashian drama. in short no one should care about the name drama. and instead be looking at what CODE decisions were made at the roundtable. if you cant see that coindesk is causing fake social drama to distract sheep from asking about the code.. with distractions about 'who is satoshi'.. then you wont see what changes to the CODE will be until its too late |
|
|
|
In any case, we can't know if satoshi was a single entity of a team of people. He used Tor, so it could have been 1 person or a couple. Any intelligent group of people wanting to pose as 1 person could have had the same person to talk in forums so there are no big differences in writing style to start the team rumors, so we can't know.
so i emboldened the part where even you say one person used the satoshi pseudonym. what is known.. only one person used the satoshi username what is known.. other people did help satoshi.. eg hal finney, plus others. but again for emphasis what is known.. only one person used the satoshi username oh and call me a troll all you like. simply because i am not hailing PEOPLE and BUSINESSES up as kings.. i think your missing the point of this topic. no one should care about the people or businesses, and only care about the code. if you would rather protect people and not care/protect the code and bitcoins ethos.. then this whole topic is lost on you |
|
|
|
While this is true there should be a line drawn. A good example for this is how Roger Ver is trying to rally the big blockers and all the "sheeple" as you said to go with them and fight for their cause. Does Roger Ver really know the technical ins and outs of Bitcoin? Between him and Peter Todd who would you listen to?
i dont defend people i defend the direction bitcoin is heading and hoping it stays inline with bitcoins ethos. i dont care if peoples pseudonymous nicknames get hurt. as thats just some side drama they play the victim card in.. funny thing is people think because i detest gmaxwell and sipa, that somehow i must think gavin, hearn and ver are kings. wrong what if i told you gavin (via Bloq) and hearn (via R3) are in the same pockets as blockstream devs, once you peal all the layers away. and that drama is just a finger pointing exercise to distract the sheep. even funnier part is that its only core that are trying to split the community, and trying reserve psychology to point cores own plans to sound like its what other teams are doing. fooling the sheep to follow the wolf by pointing at a blacksheep and saying "look sheep stay away from that black sheep, its really a wolf" What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--even gmaxwell admits ver, gavin and others were against splitting the network.. but gmaxwell loved the idea of splitting it |
|
|
|
how can you have a proof of origination.. if it is not 100% proof, because it requires X/Y/Z if's and buts to be met before you can treat it as proof.
its only proof when there is no way to 'if or but' the evidence.
Point taken. I agree that our proof can't be 100% rock solid under any condition. But I want to state that something like 100% only exists in theory (like math). Even cryptography by itself can't reach a security of 100%. Its all probabilistic. But I agree that it might be easier to spoof our concept than it is to spoof a bitcoin transaction. Maybe we should call it "evidence of origination"? Still: I think our contribution has the potential to increase the level of trust in sensor data (origin and origination time) with respect to prior technology. imagine it like it doesnt matter if there are 5000 different copies of a video. or if 100 members of staff can get to the video.. a proof of origin would be the way to know exactly which copy is the original no matter how the original was handled, physically stored, etc
To know which one is the original is not the point and I don't think "proof of origin" would be the right wording for this. That would be some kind of copy protection. You would need to prove uniqueness. all im saying is just envision a different scenario than the security video.. say one which doesnt involve as much if's or maybe's then you will show your evidence of origin may have some real utility take julian assange's use of the blockchain as proof of life, as a for instance |
|
|
|
|
"while the peasants hand pennies to the bank... the bank is accumilating pounds."
all the bank needs to do is hold them until their age(confirms) is long enough that it costs nothing to move the pennies by which time a penny is also worth more then a loaf of bread, and then change them for pounds (spend them to yourself to combine the value)
knowing that as that time passes the peasants give up waiting and never come back to get their pennies
|
|
|
|
Maybe Matonis and Gavin
what if i told you that coindesk ceo barry silbert, pays matonis a wage via coindesk what if i told you barry silbert pays gavin via barry's investment/ownership stake in Bloq what if i told you barry silbert pays gmaxwell via barry's investment/ownership stake in Blockstream and its just a big finger pointing distraction for clickbait and drama for the last 2 years to get people to take their eye off the ball EG when politics get serious and real lives can be affected and wars begin.. bring in some kardashian drama to settle the sheep back to sleep so they dont notice the real concerns happening in the opposite direction |
|
|
|
franky1 is now also an enemy of fungiblity and not just decentralization? color me surprised.
seriously? im not an enemy of fungibility.. im an enemy of bloated transactions using failed Pedersen commitment idea that permanently bloats up a transaction but ends up only giving about a couple weeks of secrecy. here is the issue with your commitments. if people are to mix funds and move funds for your confidential transactions to work where funds A and funds B, when being spent must equal the same as funds C.. then many people need to use the same commitment for the math to work. as soon as someone knows the commitment. it can all be decoded. same as the concern of the other separate problem of "address re-use". i see rusty russel is very quiet about the "address reuse" issue which will cause an issue for LN. try to think beyond the positivies of your short term use strategies to offer a feature and instead think about scenario's of length of utility before the utility itself becomes a weakness.. try to be critical of your own code, not plaster it with utopian dream advertising, while sweeping the risks under the carpet. you love giving people hope and empty promises or features offering empty short term gestures, but you dont give the community what they really need. and thats why i lost all respect for you. |
|
|
|
Stop that whining. Gmaxwell hit the point
not whining. he did hit the point. he just didnt realise he was slapping his own face. 2 vs 4 gmaxwll is 4 lover and a 2 hater |
|
|
|
|
when making an exchange.
1. if you are going to handle fiat. expect costs of running to be higher and alot of fiat compliance rules required.
2. never have a private key on the front end server. instead just have public keys attached to peoples accounts for deposit display.
and a database to store withdraw requests. which a separate remote system watches the withdrawal request database. to separately process withdrawals. thus mitigating any hackers from stealing keys from the front end server.
3. as an extra 2factor authentication. ask customers to supply a unused public key of their own. and then send the customer a random message to sign using their key(privately on their own wallet) and paste in the signature back to you as the 2factor response. this way only the customer can make requests.
meaning no passwords need to be stored on the front end server either. making the front end server just the GUI interface with nothing of value to grab.
man exchanges do not do this. which is the rookie mistake.
|
|
|
|
yep rational people want dynamic blocks of lean tx's starting at 2mb block buffer limit..
large block maniacs want 4mb weight.
you can spot a maniac when they cant even tell you that 4 is bigger than 2..so will refuse to admit they are the large block maniacs,
if you cant admit that 4 is bigger then 2 and always try to make it sound like 2 is bigger than 4.. then no one should take any notice of other word twisting crap thats said
they also want to bulk up lean tx's into being bloated tx's with 1kb confidential Pedersen commitments in the future.
they even deny their pay cheque comes from corporate and banking sources
I must say you're even better story teller than Craig Wrightoshi himself. Btw why did you remove the last paragraph from your comment?  because confidential Pedersen commitments is their future plans. and because its not yet official, i presume they will deny it even is in the plan and then meander the topic into more maniacal over dramatics by stating they have not added it yet so i must be wrong... rather than admit i see a few steps ahead of what they are ready to admit. so i left off their future plan to reduce their maniac mindsets of twisting words. as for how they are paid. well they will denie they are paid to work on bitcoin and deny their blockstream investors have anything to do with bitcoin... more nonsense meandering away from the topic at hand. so i tried to stick to the point gmaxwell made.. and just highlighted where he failed.... 2mb block vs 4mb weight.. which is bigger.. even a 6yo knows 4 is bigger |
|
|
|
In this thread, large block maniacs show that their judgement is equally poor in other domains.
yep rational people want dynamic blocks of lean tx's starting at 2mb block buffer limit.. large block maniacs want 4mb weight. you can spot a maniac when they cant even tell you that 4 is bigger than 2..so will refuse to admit they are the large block maniacs, if you cant admit that 4 is bigger then 2 and always try to make it sound like 2 is bigger than 4.. then no one should take any notice of other word twisting crap thats said |
|
|
|
That is a weak argument given the intellectual caliber of the people he "conned".
you need to know his whole back story. 1. in something like 2013 he told a friend to set up a trust. and the collateral was a bunch of PUBLIC KEYS he did not show proof of signatures of the PUBLIC keys. he relied on his friends naivity to only check the balances of the PUBLIC KEYS to get a total value to use as collateral. 2. emphasis the friend did not understand bitcoin so thought showing public key was like showing a bank statement as proof enough of holding. 3. then using the TRUST which is then falsely insured for multiple millions of dollars of value. (although it held 0 assets and just a list of random early adopter public keys). that TRUST fund was then used as collateral to then get other investments by FALSELY suggesting it was secured by million of assets. due to an insurance policy insuring the trust. 4. the now invested fund was then used to make other investments.. 5. australian authorities questioned the trust so he legged it to england.. then craig contacted media and started his own 'i am satoshi' whispers because the australian government were doubting his trusts assets. 6. later people have seen that the proof is not proof. but publicly available data.. this has made the first trust funds assets factually reduced to zero. meaning the initial investors will want to drop out. which is snowballing right now like ripples in the water. each level of investment has now realised their funds are not secure. 7. now craig wright is trying to get patents and do book deals, etc to try raising capital and creating assets to bulk up the empty trust to try and salvage some value of that empty trust. purely to avoid civil and possible criminal charges if he ever got deported to australia to have to answer for his actions. he thinks if he can replace the PUBLIC key fake asset with patents and book royalty contracts to then give the trust real value, he can avoid civil/criminal actions by showing the trust holds real value. |
|
|
|
Craig Wright has failed to place evidence that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. He even stated this" "I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot." He also offered public apology since he doesnt have enough evidence to back up his claims. I don believe Craig Wright to be Satoshi Nakamoto. he isnt satoshi, he just didnt think the community would recognise the signature MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4= as being a publicly available string of text for the last 7 years he thought people wouldnt pick up on it so quick. so had to play backtrack i feel sorry for all the investors he has conned |
|
|
|
I cant ever see them getting a differant ledger of the ground, do you think that they might run something like a hyperledger as a 2nd layer on top of bitcoin? might be possible in the future.
hyperledger will replace the banks backbone databases.. bank customers wont see/realise it changed, but the bankers will see the changes in their secret systems and how bank customers data is stored, valued and passed around (behind closed doors). hyperledger wont be an open platform where bank customers can be independant nodes.. or have independant privkeys.. it will all be multisig managed by the banks (imagine it like LN HUB smart contract concept but managed by the bankers) however the american bank branches for instance would be nodes, of each banks "brand" sidechain. where the different banks/branches(of thousands of nodes) then link upstream to a collective chain for a national FIAT sidechain... which each national fiat sidechain upstreams again to the IMF SDR (the main hyperledger) top of the pyramid chain. |
|
|
|
all the main players of the GBBC are heavily into making hyperledger. they just like to mention "bitcoin" to pretend they are going to make hyperledger an open ledger like bitcoin.. yet its just going to be fiat2.0 instead |
|
|
|
I didn't think Craig Wrght was Satoshi at first. He sure has a shit personality. He is a real fucking proper wanker if you ask me.
he is not satoshi. the article says "relates to craig wright" which made me look back at the research rabbit hole of who first introduced craig wright at a conference a few years back.. that RELATED person being nick szabo.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrEto re-open the can of worms of Szabo maybe being satoshi. eg "nick got craig to play along as craig being satoshi, to take some finger pointing away from nick himself" where the first finger pointing years ago was due to szabo's pre bitcoin 'bitcash' concept that inspired satoshi, years after bitcash was conceived. but knowing coindesk is writing the article.. im sure the other old inspirations will mention adam back due to coindesks attachment to blockstream. then a further 2 cents. adam back will proclaim he is satoshi, just so everyone should rush and buy into his LN commrecial hubs concepts... blockstreams scripts are easy to predict.
and this is why craig wright fails the "who is satoshi" he is into law and forensics and see's bitcoin being used https://youtu.be/4GuqlQvFYJo?t=1m40ssatoshi hated the idea of identifying people/corporate marketing of data |
|
|
|
|
knowing barry silbert of coindesk also has ownership stake in blockstream im guessing it will be a story of how adam back(blockstream ceo) is "one of the 4" satoshi's
by talking about his 1997 hashcash.
it could also be looking at craig wrights first appearance in the bitcoin scene via a skype call at a different conference a couple years ago where nick szabo introduced craig wright.
thus saying its a 4 way team of
nick szabo,
craig wright,
adam back
and a mysterious 4th party.
sidenote.
adam back and szabo's concepts from years prior to bitcoin did inspire the single entity of satoshi. but adam back was not involved in bitcoins development, neither adam or nick the user behind the name satoshi,
nick did do something for bitcoin but again did not use the satoshi name.
in short its one mysterious single party who is satoshi.. and the other 3 are non-satoshi's, but just trying to get some notoriety for different reasons
.. well thats my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
