I was hodling no matter what happened to the price, then Gavin announced Craig Wright had proved he is Satoshi. I panic dumped right at the bottom, then had to buy back after it became clear it was all bull. I'd never have panic dumped if it wasn't for all the Satoshi lies.
Seriously, what was your rationale for dumping? |
|
|
|
To be honest it does seem like this whole drama has mustered up a pretty good theory on the real Satoshi, maybe Craig finally decided he couldn't pretend to take claim for his dead friends work.
I am pretty much staying in the David Kleiman = SN group for now, and I am pretty damn okay with that.
The only reason he used Kleiman is because he's dead. Dead people are convenient because there are no contradictions in the unfolding story. The narrative is controlled by the person talking as the dead can't speak. It's like saying a lie that involves others. It's better if you lie about something that involves only you - you need less witnesses. If you have to involve others, well, dead people are the way to go.... True but I am pretty sure Satoshi is dead, or we would have heard something by now via some avenue. We probably have in 2 instances. 1) I'm not Dorian Nakamoto 2) The August post on the dev mailing list (The third one with "I'm not Craig Wright - we are all Satoshi" was spoofed) I don't think these messages: about Dorian, and dev mailing list - can be counted as proofs of Satoshi's real actions. At this point I refuse to believe in any action of "Satoshi" without him proving his identity first. We don't need this drama. Using his accounts / emails is some level of proof, for as long as these accounts aren't known to be hacked or renewed by third parties when they expired. It's sure better than signing nothing and saying "oh my friends over here vouch for me". |
|
|
|
To be honest it does seem like this whole drama has mustered up a pretty good theory on the real Satoshi, maybe Craig finally decided he couldn't pretend to take claim for his dead friends work.
I am pretty much staying in the David Kleiman = SN group for now, and I am pretty damn okay with that.
The only reason he used Kleiman is because he's dead. Dead people are convenient because there are no contradictions in the unfolding story. The narrative is controlled by the person talking as the dead can't speak. It's like saying a lie that involves others. It's better if you lie about something that involves only you - you need less witnesses. If you have to involve others, well, dead people are the way to go.... True but I am pretty sure Satoshi is dead, or we would have heard something by now via some avenue. We probably have in 2 instances. 1) I'm not Dorian Nakamoto 2) The August post on the dev mailing list (The third one with "I'm not Craig Wright - we are all Satoshi" was spoofed) |
|
|
|
To be honest it does seem like this whole drama has mustered up a pretty good theory on the real Satoshi, maybe Craig finally decided he couldn't pretend to take claim for his dead friends work.
I am pretty much staying in the David Kleiman = SN group for now, and I am pretty damn okay with that.
The only reason he used Kleiman is because he's dead. Dead people are convenient because there are no contradictions in the unfolding story. The narrative is controlled by the person talking as the dead can't speak. It's like saying a lie that involves others. It's better if you lie about something that involves only you - you need less witnesses. If you have to involve others, well, dead people are the way to go.... |
|
|
|
Payment channels are similar. Nobody has your coins but you. Yes, they are in the channel. Does that allow you to doublespend them as to practice fractional banking? No.
This notion seems to be at the essence of the disagreement. I think you are saying that coins in the channel are not vulnerable to any kind of mischief, and that "the channel" is not a centralized entity. Is that a fair representation? If it is deployed as it is described in the wiki, I don't see why not: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channelshttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network |
|
|
|
There is no change in the nature of money. There is no "multiplication" of bitcoins or fractional reserve. There is no trust or counterparty risk. All you have is "locked" funds between two parties That is a typical programmer's answer because programmers make little distinction between theory and practice. To them, theory IS practice. Unfortunately, real life doesn't work like that  . Tok, your position was quite persuasive and the discussion was very useful before it took that turn. I have the impression that you and AlexGR shared the same axiomatic starting points, but I'm fuzzy as to where exactly you differ, other than your respective opinions. Dismissive generalizations about "programmers" are unhelpful but hard evidence or irrefutable logic to support the opinions would be valuable. Any online forum is a very "hot" and awkward discussion medium, and of course this troll-infested thread can be hotter than most. Let's not make their lives any easier: http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.htmlYou and Alex are discussing really important issues, imho. Don't worry about what Tok said. I'm not a programmer, so... I do tend to think algorithmically, but other than that, no - I'm not a programmer in any serious or competent degree. I could if I focused on it, but I'm not particularly excited by the way most programming languages are designed and this prevents me from convincing my mind to even bother with their complexity. Now, on the topic at hand, trying to explain that payment channels are designed to be trustless is kind of similar to trying to explain that masternodes do not have access to people's coins. A lot of people think that money goes from person A to masternode to person B when the masternodes never really take possession of one's coins. Just because they perform the mixing part with other transactions doesn't mean they have to be trusted with one's coins. Payment channels are similar. Nobody has your coins but you. Yes, they are in the channel. Does that allow you to doublespend them as to practice fractional banking? No. Philosophical issues on whether the monetary properties remain the same while the money are in the channel are kind of trivial in the larger scheme of things. The real life problem is that you need decentralized scaling and you have a trustless and decentralized solution that can provide that, along with faster and cheaper txs. You can leave it on the table or you can take it. Bitcoin will take it. The alternative scaling "solutions" are quite ugly. |
|
|
|
This is interesting as well: Gmaxwell R3KT - this criticism below seems reasonable and implies you have no clue how in PGP windows works, how about explaining this?
That document is a thoroughly confused rant written by some fraudster. What the "paper" is pointing out is that although the hash preference list or "8 2 9 10 11" and the other metadata were not conceived of or implemented until a year after the claimed date (as I pointed out); it was possible, by a long series of complex manual commands to manually override the preferences and punch in whatever ones you wanted, even the 'future' ones. You may note that it take great care to provide no citation to my actual comments, in fact it quotes me but uses an image for the text-- making it more difficult to even search for it. Allow me: "The suspect keys claim to be October 2008; the commit was July 2009. So no, not without a time machine. It's possible that the settings could have been locally overridden to coincidentally the same defaults as now." https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxsm1yo?context=2-- so the whole theory that this "paper" writes for pages and pages as if it were some great concealment on my part is a possibility I explicitly pointed out. The problem with it is that it requires the user to have executed a long series of complex commands to override the preferences and have to have guessed the exact selection and ordering of the preferences that wouldn't be written for a year-- when if they preferred a particular cypher they would more likely have taken the existing "2 8 3" and stuck their choice on the front. Not only that, but they would have had to have done so on the same day that they created a totally ordinary key and published it, yet this other key-- which looks exactly like one created with post-2009 software and entirely unlike the well known one-- was provided to no one for years, not placed on public key servers and until now and otherwise has no evidence of its prior existence. Come on, give me a break. It's "possible", a fact a pointed out explicitly back then, but this possibility thoroughly fails Occam's razor-- especially on top of the evidence presented by others: Archive.org showed the subtle "hint dropping" added in blog entries was back-dated, added in 2013, SGI reported that the published letter on their letterhead was fake, the lack of cogent technical commentary from that party, etc. Bringing it back on topic, I'd say that it's surprising that all these Bitcoin Classic folks believe such tripe, but in the context of all the other incompetent nonsense they believe, it doesn't seem so surprising. And now: http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoinIn an article in the press kit accompanying the publication of his blog post, he takes aim at Gregory Maxwell, one of the leading bitcoin developers, who first claimed that the cryptographic keys in Mr Wright’s leaked documents were backdated. “Even experts have agendas,” he writes, “and the only means to ensure that trust is valid is to hold experts to a greater level of scrutiny.”The whole "do this, do that" step-by-step in Wright's blog reminds me of this: https://www.scribd.com/doc/306521425/Appeal-to-Authority-a-Failure-of-Trust...although they both fail spectacularly in terms of substance. So, with the attack on authority, now these 2 things seem connected, and then you have Gavin on top of it. wtf... => https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hyb8k/the_blocksize_debate_the_personal_attacks_against/ |
|
|
|
The man definitely has his priorities right. I mean if he was so sorry for Andersen, why doesn't he simply sign something so as to actually do something about it, like repair the damage to Andersens reputation by proving he indeed is Satoshi?
His "sorry" is of no good to Andersen.
Who is this Andersen person you keep referring to?  My hand always types him that way, lol... I should stick with Gavin  |
|
|
|
|
The man definitely has his priorities right. I mean if he was so sorry for Andersen, why doesn't he simply sign something so as to actually do something about it, like repair the damage to Andersens reputation by proving he indeed is Satoshi?
His "sorry" is of no good to Andersen.
|
|
|
|
This I can't understand. Why would he buy Bitcoins at $1200 if he had like around a million of them? If he was selling that's OK, but why he was buying them?
Because his coins were locked into a trust  He had to quench his thirst for bitcoins, paying 1200$ per BTC this is a big issue now, because why he appeared now not earlier ??
and really if he is founder of bitcoin then he should not come out for safety of own self, bitcoins & peoples money.
He should know that every thug will try him to solve the blocks and get money faster.
Making such an admission is like painting a target on your back. If anything it shows he has intelligence services protection. |
|
|
|
Have a read of the chapter in this document entitled "Open loop payment systems with instant availability of funds". The distinction between a monetary medium that separates the settlement layer from the transaction layer, and one that doesn't is adequately made there. Including the part where it says "Typically, the central bank serves as settlement agent." There's no central bank here. It's between users. There's no trust, no central bank - third party, no counterparty risk and you are always in control as you can close the channel. It is a win-win. I'm not saying thats any kind of disaster. It's the obvious thing to do if you've decided that the protocol is "out of bounds" for further development.
I'm just saying people should be honest about what it is and what it isn't and stop pretending that these technologies "scale" bitcoin in anything other than a pseudo-authentic way that does not necessarily do justice to Satoshi Craig's original vision of an instantly transferrable, anonymous, peer-to-peer tokenised asset.
===> Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
... Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
So, per the creator of the coin: - you can't have small micropayments right now - you can have them in the future though with tech progress and cheaper hardware/bandwidth which will allow more on-chain txs - you could scale to any level, including micropayments, if you altered the decentralized nature of the network into a less p2p and more client/server one by consolidating it into a few server farms. All of the above make sense in terms of tradeoffs. But as I said earlier, we are not here to make centralized paypal #2. We are here for a p2p protocol. Yes, if Bitcoin was hosted on 1-2-5 servers and everyone connected through a thin client, it would scale to visa levels and beyond right now. But how would that be decentralized? How would it be trustless? How would it be protected from someone going in and shutting it down. It wouldn't. It's very simple really. Why all the hate towards bitcoin devs for trying to find alternatives while keeping the nature of bitcoin decentralized? There is no change in the nature of money. There is no "multiplication" of bitcoins or fractional reserve. There is no trust or counterparty risk. All you have is "locked" funds between two parties, inside the channel, as they are conducting lots of micropayments between them, funds that can be "unlocked" when they want to close the channel. If this can be used to increase adoption and allow more scaling while keeping decentralization, why not? It's a win-win. |
|
|
|
If coins move, some uncertainty is removed. Currently, we are unsure if the satoshi hoard is lost or inaccessible. Knowing that it is accessible would be a big piece of new information, and would result in market reaction.
The future 100 years of newly created coins is known, and almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
Personally I believe Satoshi is alive and well and has nothing to do with Wright or Kleiman. As for the stash I believe he doesn't even need to touch the initial stash: a) for ethical reasons / so that noone can say that he used his project to become rich and/or that this is a ponzi scheme to enrich its creator b) because his skill set can certainly provide for him while living under the radar - he could probably make hundreds of thousands in wages by working somewhere in the field of his expertise, allowing him a comfortable lifestyle (if he didn't have one already). As "twisted" as it may sound, he may be living an intentionally "poor" life. I believe his stash is definitely accessible. As he said himself, you should never throw a wallet  If he is to use coins, it might be coins he bought from miners, or mined himself, perhaps later (h2 2010, 11/12/13, etc). I suspect he could make an exception if Bitcoin needed critical funding in some area. It has been discussed that at some point there may be an upgrade (with multi-year advance warning) in order to make pubkey coins unspendable if they haven't been moved in a certain timeframe, so as to not have quantum-computing related instabilities where early pubkey coins are accessed and sold. I suspect that in such a scenario he might leave the biggest part (or all) of the stash unmoved so as to be rendered unusable. As for the "next 100 years", most of the coins won't be mined in 100 years - but in the short/mid-term. We are at a rate of 110k coins per month. By the time we reach the next halving we'll have an extra 3mn coins. And then you go to something like +1.4 for the next four years. If the market is pricing-in a dump of millions of coins that will be PoW'ed in the next years, it can definitely price-in risks like Satoshi's stash. I mean MtGox went out and said "ooops we lost 850k coins" (650k after the 200k discovery) - back when they had double the price and represented a far bigger piece of the "slice". So I'm not that worried about satoshi's stash. |
|
|
|
Id say the only reason we care is because of the 1 million coins.
I've been hearing this for so long that it doesn't even make sense because such an uncertainty should always be priced-in. I mean if Satoshi tomorrow sends the coins to the bitcoin-eater address then that would be perceived as a "positive" move, raising the market, which would indicate that the market had already priced-in the uncertainty (otherwise it would not move at all). So it is priced in already - at least to some extent. Besides, we know for a fact that PoW mining is going to "dump" on us another 6 million coins in the future. What difference would 1 million coins do - that already exist and are already priced-in in terms of market supply and scarcity? Not much. |
|
|
|
...if users want many tx/s, if they want microtxs, if they want instant txs, if they want decentralization, if they want lower costs, etc etc, all these can't be achieved with onchain scaling right now I think they probably can. It's just that we've been convinced they can't by people like Adam Back who have a kind of religious belief that bitcoin was a "one-off event'. Is it Adam Back's fault that Bitcoin can't currently scale in a decentralized manner, to, say, a 300tx/sec level at 100mb blocks - or even 1/10th that? No. These are technical issues. It's not a matter of "convincing" and "religious beliefs". I think you'd find that if technologists really wanted to create a unified, scaleable, instant monetary medium based around a single blockchain then they probably could if they weren't all ego maniacs that thought they were saving the world from financial oblivion rather than just solving another day to day technical problem.
Why is it then that every altcoin is waiting for bitcoin to solve the scaling issue? If technologists had a solution, where is it? Shouldn't it be available right now in some altcoin? Shouldn't the "market gap" allow altcoins to close in by innovating? Why aren't they? The difference between holding something in your hand and holding a promissory note that says you have it "in your hand" is something that the general public understands very well and if that is the basis for bitcoin's so called "scaleability" then it will only open up markets for electronic assets for which it isn't. Thats all I'm saying.
Remember that bitcoin is all about virtual assets so at every moment you never have anything in your hand. It's all in the "cloud" of the blockchain. Even the notion of the "wallet" is just for familiarity purposes. There is no "my wallet". But even for those who believe there is a wallet, and are engaged in a payment channel to aggregate small payments with greater efficiency, they can close that channel and get the money to their wallet. It's that simple. We don't have to deal with issues like these because we currently don't have thousands of tx per block to deal with. Otherwise we would probably need payment channels as well. Actually it might also be useful for mixing purposes to offload the bloat of a multi-party, multi-round mixing, into a payment channel, eliminating on chain mixing bloat. |
|
|
|
Banking = promise where you have no idea if the agreement will be honored.
Payment channel = you know for a fact that the channel can be closed, settling the fund transfer
Imagine you're a programmer on an accounting system - like Sage or Dynamics or something like that. You agonise for years over the perfect security systems, audit trails, corporate transparency and compliance support logic. Then the end user just bins today's datafile and restores yesterday's blowing all your beautiful logic to smithereens in a an otherwise obvious action that simply did not belong to the domain of said 'security logic'. The ability to do that or not do it is the difference between a bearer token and promissory note for such. Any honest apologist for bitcoin would admit what the real priority is which is leave the protocol untouched, and not to improve its monetary properties natively. Well, there are tradeoffs involved and you have to pick which monetary properties you'll keep. If the pace of onchain scaling growth exceeds the pace where users can catch up in terms of hardware and connectivity, at that point you are leaving behind the property of decentralization and increasingly become centralized. But we are not here to make paypal #2, are we? We already have a centralized paypal. The question is how to make a decentralized one. And if users want many tx/s, if they want microtxs, if they want instant txs, if they want decentralization, if they want lower costs, etc etc, all these can't be achieved with onchain scaling right now. It will be possible in the future though because tx needs are finite. As a species we only conduct so many txs per day. With a client/server model that has no redundant/p2p inefficiencies, it's pretty easy to cover them. When technology evolves, it will eventually be easy to cover them even with a blockchain p2p approach instead of using workarounds like payment channels. We'll see how it goes although it might take decades. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
