That's exactly the reason identity isn't proven the way community wants satoshi to come forward and introduce himself . Keys can be stolen , public identity can't be altered ( well , that doesn't apply to rainbow people ) .


Well , by looking at everything craig said and showed of how bitcoin works all these years i tend to think that he is an extremely intelligent person with better understanding of the network than anyone else . Is he satoshi ? Court will decide .

That's what a large part of the community's opinion , i tend to have mine . If court decides he is not satoshi i will put him in my list of fraudsters . Till then he has the presumption of innocence , which i think is the most reasonable and civilised .

Judge Mellor has an engineering background , i think it will be easier for him to understand the technical aspects of the case
https://www.middletemple.org.uk/bencher-persons-view?cid=32113

As for the rest of the opinions , i will take the opposite stance and wait for the end of trial to finally come to a conclusion . I've been waiting for that outcome ( satoshi or not ) since 2016 . For sure Craig is a pricky dude but that doesn't mean he's not intelligent or polymath . He is definitely a possible candidate of being satoshi . Now it's on his hands to prove what he was saying for a long time , that identity is not being proven with a digital signature ( which i strongly agree ) .

The sad thing for me is that most of the members of the community haven't done their own research of who this man is and just following "influencers" opinion ( Vitalik , Sirer , Heart , CZ etc ) and want to send this man to the fire without a trial . Vitalik , the guy who thinks possessing child porn should not be a crime , has discredited Gavin and Craig first , let's not forget that . Sirer also not one honest guys in the space . Heart is gonna face US justice sooner or later . CZ , well , things not going well for him . All of them have personal interest for a non functioning bitcoin , so draw your conclusion .

Anyways , grab your popcorn and enjoy the show . We will either celebrate him as satoshi or see him behind bars . In case he manages to prove that he is the one , we will have a story like Dostoyevky's .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor

The problem with that PGP key is that while you can see in the wayback machine the first snapshot of bitcoin.org archived with date 31 Jan 2009 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/ ) , if you click the PGP key link at the bottom of the page it will transfer you to a page that has it archived with date  28 Feb 2011 and not with the same date as the original webpage ( https://web.archive.org/web/20110228054007/http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc ) .
So , to my understanding , that PGP key means nothing as someone with access to bitcoin.org could have change the original and placed there another one .

Correct me if i'm wrong but this only applies to US citizens . So , if satoshi is a non US citizen he doesn't have any problems if he doesn't report it to his tax statement .

@kano
As it's difficult to have a direct contact with a pool owner , can i ask if your node's connections are random or are you mostly ( or fully ) connected to other pools ? It's something i'd like to ask for a long time , it will help me understand if how i think network works is correct on not . Thank you in advance .

The only guarantee is to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the load . If these companies are selling a service and each click could be a potential client it would be idiotic to stand and look their website going down .

How do you define network ? That's what i'm arguing about .

5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the
chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

The network has to do with the infrastructure and it's defined in the whitepaper . It works fine . The users ( running a full node doesn't make you a part of the network , see the definition ) are the ones facing problems , and in real life they would never use something like what btc offers . No real world business would work with a model that limits the amount of users that can use it .

I disagree , that assumption is partly flawed . If pools don't own the majority of hashrate under them , they are just throwing money down the drain . Miners get paid for their work , pools just get a percentage of the reward . And pools will not earn the reward of each block , only the percentage of their share over total hashrate over time .
The whole point with ordinals and nft's was to have a market created . Since that market is created and the rewards are extremely high people will speculate . As always the first ones will be those that have maximum gains and will continue as long as it's profitable .  


I'm glad that you took an example with the only company that your argument could stand but it is flawed . The problem is that in facebook you are the product they sell . It's easy , when you're not paying for a product you are the product .
How many clients of facebook ( advertisers ) have you heard getting banned for using their service ?  
Try another argument with netflix or banks , or whatever network that users who pay for using a service getting excluded or targeted for using it . Dude , grow up .

You fail to understand what electronic cash means , that's why you insist it's an attack . In fact you have to understand what cash is : https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cash.asp .
Cash can be anything that can be turned into physical cash .  So , there has to be a market for it , and preferably it should be widely accepted . Guess what , ordinals , brc-20's and in the future defi's are accepted as a form of cash , so the payment system works as it should . Either you like it or not .

I'm saying all these things because i see people complaining about things bitcoin has face in the past ( periods of insane fees ) . And for that you blame ordinals etc . There are no spammers as long as they pay fees , especially higher than your "normal transactions" . Try to think and blame those that are really responsible for that , and that's a part of core . No one else .

Even if you are a techy guy you seem to fail to understand that you are comparing different things . If i'm a legit user of a website i won't try to send 1 million requests per second . That's a DDos attack , and it's purpose is to take down a website and have a gain by either ransoms or financial gain for a competitor .
If 1 million customers per second were trying to use that website to buy stuff that can't be consider an attack , that website would be more than happy to upgrade it's infrastructure and maximize it's profits . Imagine if facebook or netflix or banks were calling an attack the use of their networks by millions of users . Wouldn't you laugh at them ?
That's the problem here , currently there are thousands of customers that want to use btc's chain because they see an opportunity . Btc has ruled that the ones that pay higher fees are eligible to enter their transactions faster in a block that it's capacity should be limited to be as valuable as it gets . If the fee model is flawed by default ( at least from my point of view ) then that's not making those willing to pay the price attackers . It's like the example of 1 million customers per second i gave above , the logical would be to upgrade the infrastructure . But , guys like you , now understand how wrong were they sticking to 1 MB limit and scarce block space and just try to blame others . Your magical solution of L2 doesn't work , and you're looking for enemies . What would happen if tomorrow morning 100 million users decided to use btc for their everyday needs transacting in a way proper of how you think network should work ? Would you call them attackers too ? In your sense everyone that's not using LN is an attacker , that's the problem .


As i explained above you are the one that doesn't understand that this not an attack , it's a result of your premise that there should be a fee market and a limited scarce blocksize . You want a network that works on your needs , where full nodes decide how network will work . Well , from what i see , your full node that i guess is rejecting any "non-standard transaction" doesn't play any part on how blocks are building . Maybe it's time to understand how PoW consensus really works ?

First of all , to decide if something is an attack from someone you have to look at the evidence . There's no evidence connecting any of those entities with the "destruction" of btc . If there's any kindly point me to it , i'd be more than happy to change my view if serious evidence exist .

Second , if no rules are broken why is it attack ? For more than 6 months that fees were low and inscriptions were made most btc'ers were mocking and no one was talking about an attack . Now that it affects their pockets it has become one ?  

I won't stand with opinions of people that bring nothing to the table other than pure imagination . And that's what cryptosize does , not to mention that he always avoids the obvious if it doesn't fit his narratives .

What a bunch of c**p i'm reading . Been  saying that since 6 months at least in the greek subforum . "Nobody has answered" my a** .
Each ordi was inscribed for a couple of cents . Currently sitting at $80+ . That's more than 50000X return , that's a lot of ammo to continue considering that new inscriptions also make profit .
The point was to have a market created . That market is present and it will continue to grow as long as new money enter and speculation continues.

Lolz about the comments that WEF wants to attack btc . Conspiracy theorists can't even understand basic economics and supply/demand . Occam's razor doesn't apply to their "logic" .

Current situation with fees will look like nothing compared to the situation that might occur if bitvm and other protocols start to emerge and give the opportunity to have DeFi on btc . Fees will skyrocket to 1000's of $'s .

Grab your popcorn and enjoy the ride . 2024 will be a very interesting year .


 

Nope , miners an pools will work in any case , either fees are low or high , of course profit maximization is a plus for them ( find me a business that's against that ) . Those that were looking forward for such high fees as a result of limited blocksize were those in the maxis camp . Btc just gets what maxis wanted , so you should look others than miners and pools to blame .

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees

There's no need to impose anything on full nodes , as long as these transactions aren't included into a block . In the future an alert system similar to what satoshi had implemented will work for mining nodes . All other nodes play no part in consensus , so there's no reason to try to regulate them . It would be a total waste of energy to try to hunt down every non mining node on the planet . 

Could you elaborate on how are you certain that the network of nodes is decentralised at it's current status ? If we are not able to know the identity of nodes owners how can we be certain that not a single entity or less than ten controls most of those nodes ? Because the way i understand decentralisation has nothing to do with the number of nodes but with different entities controlling them .

   

I think that both miners and pools will face legal problems in case of sanctioned funds move . Not to mention core devs . But what do i know .
It's time to understand that this space isn't a place where you only have rights , but also obligations . And by coding or hashing or creating templates you're not not outside the law . The "it's decentralised so we can do anything we want" mentality starts to fall apart .

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29137

'With this Issue being posted to the official repository for Bitcoin and with this Issue being closed/dismissed by an official representative of Bitcoin Core, sanctions violations on Bitcoin have now moved from "negligent" to "culpable mental state greater than negligence." Thank you for your service.'

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.6.htm

Sec. 6.03.  DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.  (a)  A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b)  A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist.  A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c)  A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d)  A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.



 

Well , segwit and LN was the path according to core , do you consider it the right path if satoshi was wrong ? How many more years for the btc community to understand that both models were failed ?
LN devs admit that LN has many problems and can't work . Segwit din't provide any meaningful solution ( see mempool and fees ) .
If core goes to a hardfork and increase blocksize would you consider them the authority you should follow or you should reconsider if following core was a bad choice ? Because the way i see it a hardfork is imminent .   


Things are not the same as with btc . To run a node you have to invest , so , that node has to have something to offer and provide a return for that service . Or run a node as an expensive hobby . Of course it's a hustle compared to running a node on a rapspi .
Block explorers will be compensated in the future . With fees of a thousandth of a cent per tx , it will be nothing for a user that wants to check his tx to pay 0.01 $ per check .
The difference in projects is that there will be created a new economy not just by speculating on price but on building apps and services . Will it work ? Time will tell .
But for sure ( to me ) that's what electronic cash is .
And a suggestion , try it as a user ( SPV ) and let me know if it doesn't work .
 

You are correct . My bad on that .

I'm not talking about denying . Currently mempool is filled so miners do have to choose , even if they wanted to pass all transactions they can't . This is a condition which can happen with any mempool size . Even with 1 MB miners can deny to add transactions to blocks even if there are higher fees than what would be normal . In fact , it's on their best interest to mine empty blocks as long as subsidy exist . By best interest i mean their chances of finding a block is probably higher with an empty template .
So , without the option of denying , how would a mempool and blocksize increase would affect transaction fees ? 

---

So , let's consider a real bussines . If you had a store with a range of customers would you punish the ones that prefer to buy from your store ? And you would try to reward the ones that buy from you occassionaly ?
And what genuine people means ? There are people waiting with their money in hand to have their transactions get into a block . What makes your  transaction more genuine than someone else's ?
As for the incremental scaling . There's been 13 years since the launch . 6 years since blocksize wars . I remember Adam Back , Lopp and others saying at that time it was ok to increase it . Right now ,  according to what most devs believed , blocksize should be at least 32 MB . How big do you think blocksize should be currently ?

Interesting , food for thought https://twitter.com/derekm00r3/status/1733686055105069105 .

Now that Luke has pave the way to filter transactions , what happens if his pool mine an OFAC banned transaction ? Can he say that it's not his decision which transactions can be added to a block ? If mined , as a US citizen , can he face jail time ?

Satoshi was not just a developer , he was an architect . He pointed the way things should work . Don't compare core with him . It's like a civil engineer providing designs of how a building should be made , and each brick layer do whatever he thinks is better because after all civil engineers don't build bricks .
If you disagree on that kindly provide me info of what groundbreaking projects as bitcoin has each member of core made so far .


They do , its just that most people in crypto have followed what vitalik , cz etc said and consider other chains than btc as scam . Funny though that cz , richard heart and even vitalik are now officialy the scammers .
Take as an example your self . Have you ever tried if bch , bsv or xec works ? Or do you consider anathema to even transact in those chains ?

Thank you , you too . They already have . Ethereum can currently run as a sidechain on bsv and i think xec . In fact all chains can due to it's TC ability .
May the best chain win , competition is the best thing in this world .

You assumption is based on a mempool 0f 300 kb if i'm not wrong , correct ? What happens with a mempool of very big limit and a big blocksize ? Maybe i got things wrong , i'd like to hear your thoughts .

Edit . at what size do you think blocksize should be increased right now ? And why is idiotic to reach visa levels ? There's been 13 years of bitcoin existence , with billions of transaction across all projects , why would be idiotic to gather those transactions to the most secure blockchain ? People are willing to pay to transact , just not in btc .

How about demanding more transactions with lower fees by increasing blocksize ? Isn't the outcome of a block reward the same ? Who benefits from something like that ? Because the way i see it , current status only favors miners . If onchain transactions go down , this favors users . More transactions in each block would benefit both miners and users . But for sure the only entities that earn more than anybody else with current model are pools . It's basically free money for them .
An argument would be that there is no interest currently to transact on btc so no need to increase blocksize . Global transactions in crypto are hundreds of millions transactions per day . Merchants could use bitcoin instead of visa but as btc works you can't advertise it as an alternative method of payment . Of course , not everyone would be able to run a node , which is against maxis ethics .
By your logic , if blocksize never increases and subsidy is zero , network would still work fine . I'm not saying that it won't work , what i argue is that it won't be secure .