Again, we know CSW
backdated multiple blogposts ...
"Craig Wright - More backdated blog frauds
Few days ago I did a tweetstorm about Wayback Machine, how to debunk a 2011 Tulip Trust hint of #Faketoshi.
Here's another one, where Craig claims on Jan 10, 2009 to start with the Bitcoin network the next day."-
https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1220264990810300416Moreover, ...
See: The #Faketoshi Fraud Timeline ...
-
https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/
I have met and interacted with Gavin Andresen and he seems to me to be a decent and intelligent person. Even decent and intelligent people can be fooled, so I feel that any animosity towards him is undeserved. Note also that he is not the only person that was fooled by CSW.
My belief is that Gavin probably felt that his certification was not really important because CSW stated that he was going to show the proof to the public. Then, when CSW's public proof turned out to be bogus, Gavin's certification led to his undoing.
Quite frankly I don't believe Gavin was fooled. I believe he had an agenda and was perhaps somewhat complicate in some regard.
He did not (initially) subscribe to a
Glamor Response ...
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_responseand then seemingly took an ongoing position of deliberate ambiguity.
Gavin Andresen
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_AndresenThe "agenda" ... !?
Bitcoin XT
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XTGavin Andresen: I Might Take Over Lead of Bitcoin XT
-
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/gavin-andresen-i-might-take-over-lead-of-bitcoin-xt-1448486445Where is Gavin Andresen? The Quiet Exile of Bitcoin’s Former Face
-
https://www.coindesk.com/where-is-gavin-andresen-the-quiet-exile-of-bitcoins-former-face...
...snip...
The order of things I would want satoshi to sign to 'prove' identity would be ...
1. The PGP Key.
2. The Genesis Block and/or block 1,2 etc.,
3. The block with the outgoing transaction to Hal Finney.
4. Then Login to either ning / P2P foundation account, forum account login and sourceforge login.
5. Old communications and being able to recall 'private' conversations etc.,
...snip...
...
"Quite possibly one of the worst #Faketoshi enabler's and supporters thus far, and in no particular order ...
1. Gavin "Bell" Andresen
2. Jon Matonis
3. Ian Grigg
4. George Gilder
5. Calvin Ayre "-
https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_XBT/status/1320412165036216320...
Hostile takeover bid failed ... [citation's needed] !?
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary.
...snip...
...
*Satire*
lady gaga - poker face (slowed) [ russian roulette is not the same without a gun ]-
https://youtu.be/IsdWl0CwS2g
