|
harrymmmm
|
 |
August 17, 2015, 12:42:54 AM |
|
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
That is a different situation than what is going on here. Sure the likelihood that that person is who they say they are is pretty high, but what about some really famous person who no one has ever seen before (no pictures, nothing) and have only been known online and suddenly one day a random person says that he is this person? Would you really trust that guy to be saying the truth? Or would you ask for more proof of his identity? That is what we are doing here. No one knows who satoshi is, what he looks like, or anything about him except that he is some guy on the internet who created this cool thing called Bitcoin. Without any other information about Satoshi, no one can really vouch for him and we can't know that this person is him without some kind of proof since anyone can say "I am Satoshi". Again. Have some faith in the HUMAN element. humans lie So if you asked the core devs and early adopters, even if they deny it, are you seriously saying they can't voucher who Satoshi Nakamoto really is? Seriously?
Yes, I'd seriously say that. They had no need to investigate who he was.And if he did reveal his real id to one of them, i would not expect that person to betray that trust now anyway. The point here is that his code was good, his ideas were good. That's all that mattered. You put your faith into an artificial lock and key to tell you the truth? That would mean you don't trust any of them.
Faith in a lock and key rather than trust in a human i never met? Any day! |
|
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:46:02 AM |
|
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
That is a different situation than what is going on here. Sure the likelihood that that person is who they say they are is pretty high, but what about some really famous person who no one has ever seen before (no pictures, nothing) and have only been known online and suddenly one day a random person says that he is this person? Would you really trust that guy to be saying the truth? Or would you ask for more proof of his identity? That is what we are doing here. No one knows who satoshi is, what he looks like, or anything about him except that he is some guy on the internet who created this cool thing called Bitcoin. Without any other information about Satoshi, no one can really vouch for him and we can't know that this person is him without some kind of proof since anyone can say "I am Satoshi". Again. Have some faith in the HUMAN element. humans lie So if you asked the core devs and early adopters, even if they deny it, are you seriously saying they can't voucher who Satoshi Nakamoto really is? Seriously?
Yes, I'd seriously say that. They had no need to investigate who he was.And if he did reveal his real id to one of them, i would not expect that person to betray that trust now anyway. The point here is that his code was good, his ideas were good. That's all that mattered. You put your faith into an artificial lock and key to tell you the truth? That would mean you don't trust any of them.
Faith in a lock and key rather than trust in a human i never met? Any day! You, sir, were trolled perfectly... lol |
|
|
|
|
|
harrymmmm
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:52:48 AM |
|
yeah, that would be good.  maybe satoshi could choose. iam okay with BIP 100 / BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT. But bitcoin must scale. Those have sudden starting increases that don't fly with the majority of the core devs. Would you be convinced as a compromise to remain with core if they implemented bip103 with an earlier start date (jan 2016 instead of 2017 for example)? That would mean an immediate 4% increase, 17% thru 2016, etc. It seems to me that such a compromise would be a lot better than a contentious fork, with the dev split, risks, ... |
|
|
|
|
|
harrymmmm
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:59:03 AM |
|
You, sir, were trolled perfectly... lol
Haha, maybe. But never mind, I'm making a run for Sr member. Need the posts. |
|
|
|
|
ausbit
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1019
|
|
August 17, 2015, 01:41:13 AM |
|
You, sir, were trolled perfectly... lol
Haha, maybe. But never mind, I'm making a run for Sr member. Need the posts. Lol, you made it all the way to a full member and you still haven't realised that post count doesn't matter for rank upgrade.  Edit: Just looked at your profile (should have done that before posting i know) and seen that you must have a few alts that your trying to rank up. Good luck but apart from selling it i really dont see why people care so much about rank. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
achow101
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3402
Merit: 6653
Just writing some code
|
|
August 17, 2015, 01:49:52 AM |
|
I wrote that.
Wrote what? The email? If so, can you prove it? |
|
|
|
|
harrymmmm
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:04:21 AM
Last edit: August 18, 2015, 06:27:52 AM by harrymmmm |
|
You, sir, were trolled perfectly... lol
Haha, maybe. But never mind, I'm making a run for Sr member. Need the posts. Lol, you made it all the way to a full member and you still haven't realised that post count doesn't matter for rank upgrade. Edit: Just looked at your profile (should have done that before posting i know) and seen that you must have a few alts that your trying to rank up. Good luck but apart from selling it i really dont see why people care so much about rank. Wut? Say it ain't so! Something different about senior member rank? I don't tend to read the forum management and rules kind of stuff, soit's likely i wouldn't know about something special happening at this next rank. edit: so you were completely wrong. I made it |
|
|
|
|
Scaccomatt0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000
https://cryptoworld.io
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:00:06 PM |
|
what if he really satoshi?
what will happen with bitcoin?
he/they has/have so much btc that could manipulate the price.. if private keys exist.. |
|
|
|
Gleb Gamow
In memoriam
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1145
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:11:23 PM |
|
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlhoax? real? you decide bitcoin-dev Bitcoin XT Fork
Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com
Sat Aug 15 17:43:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto I noticed a couple commas missing and the spelling of "honour". |
|
|
|
|
|
TransaDox
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:26:05 PM |
|
I'm Satoshi and so's my wife  |
|
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:49:51 PM |
|
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010331.htmlJonathan Wilkins j at blockstream.com
Mon Aug 17 18:41:31 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] BIP [104]: Replace Transaction Fees with Data, Discussion Draft 0.2.9
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I'm sure that most people here were skeptical, but FWIW, the server that
hosts vistomail.com is a mess, it's a Plesk box with more than a couple of
services with dubious security histories. MailEnable smtpd, MSRPC, RDP, see
for yourself:
Most likely someone popped the box and is entertaining themselves.
Nmap scan report for vistomail.com (190.97.163.93)
Host is up (0.10s latency).
Not shown: 65521 filtered ports
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
21/tcp open ftp Microsoft ftpd
<snipped for brevity's sake>
|
|
|
|
|
