Gavin is an Agent

[AGD]

That is not what I asked though.
I asked: Can anyone give me the link for when Satoshi said: "I am moving on, it's in good hands with Gavin and the guys"

Thanks  

He expressed interest in moving on months before and made preparations in advance but never gave a farewell message and simply disappeared leaving everyone wondering. His only response years later was :
"I am not Dorian Nakamoto."

(verified by his signature)

NOT verified! Most probably the same hacker, that has sent a message to Theymos using Satoshis GMX email account.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Seems like a pretty far fetched theory, worth of infowars.com, still entertain food for thought. I think the theory of him being satoshi is far more feasible tho.

[hellyeah]

That is not what I asked though.
I asked: Can anyone give me the link for when Satoshi said: "I am moving on, it's in good hands with Gavin and the guys"

Thanks  

He expressed interest in moving on months before and made preparations in advance but never gave a farewell message and simply disappeared leaving everyone wondering. His only response years later was :
"I am not Dorian Nakamoto."

(verified by his signature)

NOT verified! Most probably the same hacker, that has sent a message to Theymos using Satoshis GMX email account.

I don't remember there being any verifications with Satoshis signature?
Do you have a source to that claim?

[Lauda]

NOT verified! Most probably the same hacker, that has sent a message to Theymos using Satoshis GMX email account.

I don't remember there being any verifications with Satoshis signature?
Do you have a source to that claim?

He's talking nonsense. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-creator-returns-to-internet-to-say-i-am-not-dorian-nakamoto/
You can see the post there. There is no signature i.e. it was not posted by the real Satoshi.

Here is also a past discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763459.0

[hellyeah]

NOT verified! Most probably the same hacker, that has sent a message to Theymos using Satoshis GMX email account.

I don't remember there being any verifications with Satoshis signature?
Do you have a source to that claim?

He's talking nonsense.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-creator-returns-to-internet-to-say-i-am-not-dorian-nakamoto/

You can see the post there. There is no signature i.e. it was not posted by the real Satoshi.
Here is also a past discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763459.0

I read the stories before.
I remember the hacker later contacted theymos asking for Bitcoins.
As if Satoshi needs more of them. LOL

[inBitweTrust]

I don't remember there being any verifications with Satoshis signature?
Do you have a source to that claim?

I was mistaken. Its validity is argued both ways and we cannot presume much,.

[gentlemand]

when/if bitcoin becomes mainstream the majority of bitcoin users will use and rely on online wallets and exchanges, if these centralized companies collude together with big mining companies they will have the biggest blockchain and people won't even have the choice to change blockchain if they want to keep their money.

I think the only real way the consensus mechanism would work as it should is if the blockchain is forked in a way that anyone can mine and earn bitc, maybe by putting some sort of limit on processing power/node, decentralized mining is the only thing that will preserve integrity of the protocol IMO

I really wonder if there's going to be a way to get away from that outcome. Convenience and preserving their funds is more important to most people than decentralisation even when that's the core principle.

Circle/ Coinbase etc are already engaged on a slow creep towards being cornerstones of a future system. The miners are a much more random element but many are just out to make the most money.

By the time it become clear that decentralised mining is really necessary to keep the flame alive, the block reward might not be worth it any more.

It's quite possible the whole thing will closely follow the trajectory of the internet. What began as the wild west slowly became another facet of everyday life with a side order of extra freedom if you could be bothered. 

[teukon]

Wait.  Weren't agent Smith and "Mr. Andersen" enemies in that movie?  Is Neo's defection a planned plot element for The Matrix 4 or something?

[inBitweTrust]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34riua/hard_fork_allow_20mb_blocks_after_1_march_2016/cqxeoj4

Reddit, I think you're jumping the gun based on watching a personal repository.

I think this is just some testing code-- he hasn't discussed this particular change with the other core developers; I for one would vigorously oppose it: for one, it's actually /broken/ because it doesn't change the protocol message size (makes for a nice example of how misleading unit tests often are; in this case they're vacuous as they don't catch that blocks over about 2MB wouldn't actually work). It's also not consistent with the last discussions we had with Gavin over his large block advocacy, where he'd agreed that his 20mb numbers were based on a calculation error. --- this without getting into the subtle concerns about long and short term incentives which are under-researched, or the practical issue of increasing node operating costs in a network with a node count that has fallen so much).

If y'all go around making a big deal about people's sketchpad work in their personal repos it creates an incentive to move all your work to private repositories where people can't get at them and read too much into them. I'd suggest you try to avoid doing that.

actually, it does change the protocol size....

.... But yes, it is intended as'it is time to discuss this now.' I will be writing a series of blog posts in the coming week or two responding to objections I've heard.

Healthy skepticism is fine... but sometimes these threads devolve into paranoia. Any critics of the block size limit increase should be criticizing specifics like Gregory Maxwell and offering other suggestions to the 3-7tps limitation dilemma.

[bambou]

when/if bitcoin becomes mainstream the majority of bitcoin users will use and rely on online wallets and exchanges, if these centralized companies collude together with big mining companies they will have the biggest blockchain and people won't even have the choice to change blockchain if they want to keep their money.

I think the only real way the consensus mechanism would work as it should is if the blockchain is forked in a way that anyone can mine and earn bitc, maybe by putting some sort of limit on processing power/node, decentralized mining is the only thing that will preserve integrity of the protocol IMO

I really wonder if there's going to be a way to get away from that outcome. Convenience and preserving their funds is more important to most people than decentralisation even when that's the core principle.

Circle/ Coinbase etc are already engaged on a slow creep towards being cornerstones of a future system. The miners are a much more random element but many are just out to make the most money.

By the time it become clear that decentralised mining is really necessary to keep the flame alive, the block reward might not be worth it any more.

It's quite possible the whole thing will closely follow the trajectory of the internet. What began as the wild west slowly became another facet of everyday life with a side order of extra freedom if you could be bothered.  

That bold stuff sums it up. Thing is the Internet is now just some NSA's extension for mass surveillance. Nothing like its inceptors, Cypher punks purists et al. thought of in the beginning. Thank you Google, Facebook & co.

Coinbase & co will sell you to USG. The same way Facebook did. Because Profit.

Coinbase and all US bitcoin startups will follow Gavin's plan as per extension with USG interests, AND FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST. Claiming thats what "market decides" or that you should've come with a "better solution" (to a NON-PROBLEM).
Hence Gavin is now aiming for a fork before we even get the chance to see what happens with full blocks.. and even before the Halving, which should send bitcoin beyond moonscape... Why such a hurry?!

Considering that even JPMorgan & co recognised the potential for Bitcoin to undertake exclusively and effectively large transactions worldwide.

If you cant see this then you are a lost US shill. Whether you recognize it or not. Just like Gavin, whether he is aware of being a USG muppet or not.

MUURICAAA FUCK NO.

[cr1776]

3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
          https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770

I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving  - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".

A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along.

[bambou]

3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
          https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770

I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving  - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".

A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along.

lol no. read again.

Hard fork: allow 20MB blocks after 1 March 2016

Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-07-29 05:53:43 UTC (64 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 30 minutes)
http://bitcoinclock.com/

thats hardly 5 months before, and there is still room to lessen the time left until halving.

[Lauda]

3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
          https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770

I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving  - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".

A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along.

Hard fork: allow 20MB blocks after 1 March 2016

Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-07-29 05:53:43 UTC (64 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 30 minutes)
http://bitcoinclock.com/

thats hardly 5 months before, and there is still room to lessen the time left until halving.

It's still not 'just before' the halving. No there is no room anymore, you don't know what you're talking about. You obviously have not either participated in many threads or read enough of them.
The halving might come earlier by 1 day than the time mentioned. It was actually coming closer at a quicker rate in the past.
There is nothing wrong with 20M blocks. If the other developers agree with Gavin this will get implemented. However, if they disagree then it won't.

[bambou]

<snap>

There is nothing wrong with 20M blocks. If the other developers agree with Gavin this will get implemented. However, if they disagree then it won't.

this is funny. please point me to such debate..

at best you could find devs disagreeing and in no condition there has been a consensus about it. just no.

yet Mr Bell is moving forward with HIS (USG) plan.

[hdbuck]

1- CIA wouldn't publicly interview their own agents (or potential ones)

2- TBF screwed themselves + stopped paying the devs in April. GA is still Chief Scientist though afaik.

3- Feel free to contribute yourself, offer alternative solutions or just stay on the old fork.

1/ Thats not an argument. Fact is Satoshi vanishes when Gavin is "invited" @CIA. but lol nobody is just "invited" there.. XD

2/ Gavin is/was an accomplice. Kinda like acknowledging their misbehavior by omission.

3/ I wouldnt call the 20Mb Fork a "contribution". More like a "retribution".. all the way back into USG's frame freaks.



Centralize & Control^TM

1- That's not really an argument for or against. But using the common sense, if CIA was to recruit GA, they would far more likely approached him quietly, instead of letting him make public statements about the invitation. Seems to me Satoshi did freak out over wikileaks accepting bitcoins (see his 2nd latest post).

2- Sure, let's not blame the ones that misbehaved, lets blame GA for his 'omission'. Anyway, how's that an argument of him being an agent?

3- I was referring to 'your contribution'. Don't like the fork? Let's hear your ideas/solutions. Most of people seem to agree with the need of lifting the limits with some difference of opinions on details.

That being said, I think it's actually healthy to consider the possibility of GA or any other dev to be an agent, and properly examine any proposed changes and look for threats etc. But announcing that as a fact because of the reasons stated in the OP is just daft.

1/ gavin is CIA buddy because "invitation". Gavin is USG buddy, because MIT Media LAB employee.

2/ gavin "worked" along scammers and deceivers a la Mark Karpeles, Shrem, Murk, Pierce and so on.

3/ there is no solution to be found to a non problem.

Im not saying Gavin is an classic Agent, like with a contract and a nice pension fund. Just that his intentions regarding Bitcoin are closely alined with USG's agenda. By now they surely made sure of it. Dont be naive man.

That being said, im done discussing this, i'll leave it to Bitcoin antifragileness.

[Lauda]

this is funny. please point me to such debate..

at best you could find devs disagreeing and in no condition there has been a consensus about it. just no.

yet Mr Bell is moving forward with HIS (USG) plan.

Do you think that this is an anarchy or something?
Here you can find the list of developers and contributors: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
The changes were made on Gavin's github, thus they are proposed changes. He can't force them. If the developers agree with Gavin then this commit will go into Bitcoin.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770

This is not Bitcoin.

Code:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

This is Bitcoin.

[ashour]

Nah I don't think he is an agent

[R2D221]

Yeah, let's talk about “Gavincoin” again. Why not?

Let's see how many logical fallacies appear this time.

[bambou]

Yeah, let's talk about “Gavincoin” again. Why not?

Let's see how many logical fallacies appear this time.

fallacy spotted.

[R2D221]

Yeah, let's talk about “Gavincoin” again. Why not?

Let's see how many logical fallacies appear this time.

fallacy spotted.

The game is not just to spot them, but to prove they're fallacies.