This body has absolutely zero control over any of that.

That's also not quite true.  They control only the handing out of top-level domain groups, not the identification of specific domains, nor the resolving of domains to IP addresses.  Your ISP generally controls DNS resolution, but you can set your DNS server to whatever you like.  Google's are free, as are many more.  Or set your own up.

Also, any changes to the existing rules require a unanimous vote. Everyone gets veto.

0.001% of the total British Pounds in circulation is less than $1 million US.

There are many valid opinions on exactly what constitutes "Cold Storage."  None of them include "Computer that is connected to the Internet, and from which I download and run files from .torrent sites."

Real computer security is nontrivial and requires diligence.  It is best to recognize when that level of effort (to understand and to implement) is beyond what you're willing to expend.  Half measures are no more valid than no measures, and what you've described is not even close to a half measure.  

This is not a rebuke. Your computer usage is in no way the exception, but the general rule. Instead, I have a suggestion.  www.bitcointrezor.com.

If Satoshi does not want those coins used, he has already destroyed the private key. They will not be used. Ever. By anyone.  If Satoshi wants those coins to use, who are we to tell him otherwise? 

Sanders is 74.

Did you miss this recent Trump quote?

"People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and I mean, these people are crazy. This is the United States government," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

Um, no CW, all you have to do is sign a message with a private key known to be owned by Satoshi (take your pick, there are several).  This doesn't require in-person meetings. It doesn't require special clean laptops purchased down the street. It doesn't require clean flash drives, SSL connections, or tarot readings. Just sign a simple message and be done with it.  Here's a thought - sign the top headline from yesterday's NY Times.

Verifiable proof is not difficult to design. It is not difficult to verify.  It is not difficult to create, unless of course you are not Satoshi and do not have access to any of his private keys.

No, that they already have. What they're proposing is not secured in the same way (at all) that Bitcoin is. It's a very weak attempt at distraction from what they see as a serious threat.

The evidence as presented does not prove that Wright is Satoshi.  It also does not prove that he is not Satoshi.  It is simply nonsense.  All it proves is that either a) Gavin was fooled, or b) Gavin believes the rest of us are idiots.  Any time you let a potential charlatan control the conversation, the danger is that you fall in line with their thought path and do not apply objective critical analysis.  The fact that Gavin met in person with Wright would tend to support that as a possibility.

It would be nice to see Gavin make some sort of comment on the series of analyses that have been made that prove Wright's offered evidence is absolutely fake.  Is there additional (real) evidence that only Gavin saw?  If so, why publicize the fake "evidence"?

Gavin's a smart guy.  Even smart guys make mistakes. If this was a mistake, it's a doozy, but the opportunity remains to come out and admit he was fooled.  The longer he waits, the more the conspiracy theorists will clamor that he's trying to use Wright to wedge in a block size increase.  I don't subscribe to that theory, yet.

So come on Gavin, real proof or retract your endorsement. Sooner rather than later please.

Bitcoin is an open sourced, consensus-based distributed system.  If objectively superior features are developed elsewhere, they may be integrated into Bitcoin. In fact, many already have been.

Hmm... why would the chosen quote begin mid-sentence.  You conveniently cut the "It starts with" from that sentence.  Could it be that the entire paragraph goes a bit differently?


Gee. It sounds to me like they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do.

You seem to have missed the "2017" part of "July 2017".  The next halving is a year ahead of this.

There's really no room for debate on what Satoshi would favor.  He originally coded a 32 MB cap for block size, and implemented a 1 MB cap as a stopgap anti-spam measure, expressly intended to be temporary.  Unless he plans to poke his head out and provide an opinion, this is the best information we have on the subject.

Yeah, nothing.  Except nodes begin to crash.  Resulting in the very centralization that was feared by some if we moved to larger block sizes.

That's OP's entire point.  It's too soon to start "deprecating critical parts of bitcoin (zeroconf transactions and low transaction fees)".

http://www.bitcointrezor.com/ is probably a better fit for your needs than case.

The choice of 8 decimal places is arbitrary and can be changed, without diluting the value of Bitcoin.  Your math/memory is also off.  If each existing satoshi was worth $1, the total final market cap would be $2.1 quadrillion.

There is no proof in the article. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence and hints, but no proof. In contrast, there is absolute proof that some of their evidence was forged.

This. For the love of Pete, this.