No, I barely skimmed the title.

My comments are speaking about block size removal in general, as that is the pertinent issue on peoples minds with this whole Craig Wright fiasco.

The issue at hand is that Gavin's BIP101 proposal had an absolutely absurd block size limit of 8MB which doubled every two years to 8GB near the end of its term, and I want people to realize that this is essentially the same as removing the block size limit all together.

I was not making any comments on his specific opinion if that is what you thought.

Why does everybody keep focusing on the blocksize issue, when the real issue is block generation frequenc?,. Is it just that blocksize is an apparently trivial change that everybody can understand, but they don't appreciate the broader implications such as possible mining centralisation.

Correct. This would only work if all participants of the system were honest and mean no harm. This is obviously not the case with Bitcoin as it keeps being attacked via various methods (FUD campaigns, spam, TX spam, etc.)

There was talk about this being implemented at a later point. However, one has to set up very good 'limitations' so that the dynamic block size limit can't (hopefully) be abused in any way.

The potential for abuse without a block-size limit is too high, if the block size limit is removed, then it will be the end of all chains that adopted the removal.

It is possible, in a system whereby there are billions/trillions of clients or more, to remove the block size limits, and simply let non-full node clients connect to whatever is the most popular network out there, and this may have been Satoshi's final intent.

It is however, far too early for this to happen. What is needed right now is a dynamic block size limit, that expands using a predictive model of the same function which models the minimum increase in network bandwidth over time around the world.

Well what was the point of all this fake Satoshi stuff once again? Is Craig Wright looking to bring the price up or down? What is he going to gain for himself by claiming to be the real Satoshi and can he be prosecuted for submitting misleading information? I guess free publicity for Bitcoin is not a bad thing after all as this news has been broadcasted around the world to a lot of people.

The real Satoshi could just send a message saying he is not Craig.

This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.

This is an interesting theory. My own 2 satoshis is that if something like this happened, the real Satoshi would hold his fire until he saw that the bitcoin community was reaching a mistaken consensus and had accepted a con artist in his place. Only then might he act. And even then Satoshi would do so in a way that would protect his own anonymity while demonstrating that false claimant was a scammer. Satoshi doesn't need to hold a press conference or appear in person to demonstrate his identity/ownership of private keys, and use those keys to send authentifiable messages denouncing the scammer.

I said it before and i will say it again. he is not satoshi he is truing to force satoshi out.

Everyone knows the simple and clear way to establish a claim to being Satoshi is to publically publish a digital signature proving you hold the private key to the Genesis block. This wouldn't be final proof (we could argue conspiracy theories forever on that point), but it would be a clear hurdle to pass.

So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:

1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.

I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.

Ok but we dont care about blockchain. Are the bank fees going to be lower? Probably but not by a lot.

Bitcoin is superior to the banking transaction system in anyway. But at least they get familiar with the tech.

What does this mean for endusers? They were already allowed to proceed with fiat cashouts, what does this regulation add? I don't see good things coming out of this, but I am likely misinformed...

Good news there is they'll be creating a BTC/EUR pair

Happy Birthday Ross!
What a shame to see he threw his life away, when (for example) he could have created a legal business and/or at least used a server not based in the USA.

I hope he comes out from the prison hell cause prison is hell of this world. He hasn't done any horrendous crime apart that facilitating drugs weapon and some kind of other illegal activities. I mean people kill persons and don't get life prison, why this one should get life prison?

Is this guy sentenced to life prison as far as I know ? Well I wish him happy birthday and we should all donate to FreeRoss.org but if he is in life sentence in prison then there is not much we can do expect the above. Wow life is very sad sometimes.

Should be some interesting reading material while sitting around munching on food all day.