Thoughts regarding "satoshis" post today on the mailing list?

[chek2fire]

and he keep this email account all this years to use it atm?

[1714891150]

1714891150

[gentlemand]

and he keep this email account all this years to use it atm?

Who knows? His GMX account was broken into. Maybe it was abandoned and picked up by someone else. I don't know how vistomail works. Perhaps it only recently became possible.

This is a prime moment to try and undermine a position that a lot of people are taking. It's the biggest and most emotive debate that's arisen in a long, long time.

[maku]

account was hacked and mail was without his PNG key.

Hoax.

Yes. But that does not change the fact that he posted some really interesting thought. What we are witnessing now: split between core and XT can change everything in the future.
Bitcoin from decentralized entity when majority can vote on changes can become toy of the biggest pools and plaything of most notable developers.

[harrymmmm]

it seams that someone is utilizing the old "Divide and conquer " technique ?!

It seems the seams are splitting then?
Sorry, i couldn't resist this absurdly useless post.

[harrymmmm]

Here's an interesting addendum - https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06194.html

It's amazingly uninformed for a crypto list, but i guess they are really only about bitcoin after all.

According to that Satoshi never added a PGP signature to anything.

Maybe. But he did have a pgp key from 2008:
pub   1024D/5EC948A1 2008-10-30
uid                  Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
sub   2048g/D6AAA69F 2008-10-30

He should have signed something with it once to make it concrete tho.

If that is the case then there's no real way of ever proving who Satoshi is beyond moving the relevant coins. Even then that would only prove that someone had access to those coins.

There's never a 100% guaranteed way to prove identity, especially a pseudonym, but if he posted a message signed with that pgp key, i'd be inclined to believe it was him.

And. as you say, signing a message with his bitcoin private key would work too.

Satoshi has reached permanent ghosthood.

[Chris_Sabian]

Use the genesis block address and sign a message.  Otherwise no Satoshi.

[Raize]

His GMX account was broken into.

I was under the impression his GMX account was not actually "hacked" it was just expired and re-registered by someone else? Hell, for all we know was expired and re-registered by the actual Satoshi. :/

It could be that vistomail.com was compromised. Not the email address, but the entire website or domain. This might be the only way to account for this according to some of the other comments listed here that seem to indicate the site is "down" (it could be that it was compromised and default splash pages are being listed).

It seems clear that the email itself is NOT spoofed given that the IP it came from was listed as an authorized IP via the vistomail.com SPF record.

I guess I'd echo some of the sentiments here in that it's okay to be skeptical, but I wouldn't just dismiss this as "fake" yet.

[dhenson]

Use the genesis block address and sign a message.  Otherwise no Satoshi.

2nd'd... trollers gunna troll.

That's all this is.

[Amph]

Satoshi wouldn't actually need to write any words to express a negative opinion about recent developments.

All he'd need to do is dump a few thousand BTC from one of his known wallets. 

you think that he is so stupid to dump at this current rate when there was a 1200 peak and all kind of better price than this?

would be the stupid move ever

[Rampion]

FACT 1: Someone claiming to be Satoshi writes that he might have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project because of Hearn's and Andresen's hard fork.

FACT 2: Real Satoshi or not, zero fucks were given by Bitcoin

FACT 3: there is no evidence of satoshi (at) vistomail.com having being compromised.

SPECULATION + OPINION: The message is consistent with Satoshi's writing style, which at the same time is inconsistent with the writing style of the guy who hacked satoshin@gmx.net + past obvious impostors. Taking into consideration this and other factors I believe that it is reasonably possible that the message comes from the real Satoshin but, real or not, my opinion on his message won't change: I agree with him, Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, but I really don't understand all this drama. Bitcoin *needs* to evolve even in times of strong disagreement, and thankfully enough it is an open source project, which means that forks are expected.

Just consider XT a new alt-coin, promoted by two charismatic Bitcoin Core devs using aggressive marketing tactics. If this new alt-coin brings any good and replaces vanilla Bitcoin is yet to be seen (I honestly doubt it), but is nevertheless an interesting development to watch unfold and yet another test to the resilience of the Bitcoin concept. I certainly think that such a change in the block size, which could be a huge security risk, is better to be tested on an alt-coin such as XT than on Bitcoin Core. The only block size change proposal I've read so far and that I consider sane and reasonable enough to be implemented in Core is Sipa's "Block size according to technological growth".

[coinableS]

FACT 1: Someone claiming to be Satoshi writes that he might have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project because of Hearn's and Andresen's hard fork.

FACT 2: Real Satoshi or not, zero fucks were given by Bitcoin

FACT 3: there is no evidence of satoshi (at) vistomail.com having being compromised.

SPECULATION + OPINION: The message is consistent with Satoshi's writing style, which at the same time is inconsistent with the writing style of the guy who hacked satoshin@gmx.net + past obvious impostors. Taking into consideration this and other factors I believe that it is reasonably possible that the message comes from the real Satoshin but, real or not, my opinion on his message won't change: I agree with him, Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, but I really don't understand all this drama. Bitcoin *needs* to evolve even in times of strong disagreement, and thankfully enough it is an open source project, which means that forks are expected.

Just consider XT a new alt-coin, promoted by two charismatic Bitcoin Core devs using aggressive marketing tactics. If this new alt-coin brings any good and replaces vanilla Bitcoin is yet to be seen (I honestly doubt it), but is nevertheless an interesting development to watch unfold and yet another test to the resilience of the Bitcoin concept. I certainly think that such a change in the block size, which could be a huge security risk, is better to be tested on an alt-coin such as XT than on Bitcoin Core. The only block size change proposal I've read so far and that I consider sane and reasonable enough to be implemented in Core is Sipa's "Block size according to technological growth".

Excellent post, the best I have read in a long time. This post alone deserves it's own thread IMO.

[Kprawn]

Whomever wrote that, made a whole lot of sense. Today it's the block size, tommorow it's the amount of coins that rewards the miners...Where do we draw the line? Mike & Gavin wants a dictatorship control over

Bitcoin, and it will enable them to make huge changes, possibly with minimal consensus... if they gather enough support with the same tactics they used to grow Bitcoin XT support. 

I would much rather see a more decentralized and global development team of engineers representing Bitcoin... not 2 guys on a power trip. 

If Satoshi wants to get his message out.. He could just send a few Satoshi's from one of his well known Bitcoin addresses and attach a little message. 

[meono]

FACT 1: Someone claiming to be Satoshi writes that he might have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project because of Hearn's and Andresen's hard fork.

FACT 2: Real Satoshi or not, zero fucks were given by Bitcoin

FACT 3: there is no evidence of satoshi (at) vistomail.com having being compromised.

SPECULATION + OPINION: The message is consistent with Satoshi's writing style, which at the same time is inconsistent with the writing style of the guy who hacked satoshin@gmx.net + past obvious impostors. Taking into consideration this and other factors I believe that it is reasonably possible that the message comes from the real Satoshin but, real or not, my opinion on his message won't change: I agree with him, Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, but I really don't understand all this drama. Bitcoin *needs* to evolve even in times of strong disagreement, and thankfully enough it is an open source project, which means that forks are expected.

Just consider XT a new alt-coin, promoted by two charismatic Bitcoin Core devs using aggressive marketing tactics. If this new alt-coin brings any good and replaces vanilla Bitcoin is yet to be seen (I honestly doubt it), but is nevertheless an interesting development to watch unfold and yet another test to the resilience of the Bitcoin concept. I certainly think that such a change in the block size, which could be a huge security risk, is better to be tested on an alt-coin such as XT than on Bitcoin Core. The only block size change proposal I've read so far and that I consider sane and reasonable enough to be implemented in Core is Sipa's "Block size according to technological growth".

Sane proposal? which only gives us 10mb Block in 2030 ?

Its opposite of sane, its MADNESS. Did you even check his pessimistic view of the technological growth?

 

[smoothie]

let me debunk this imposter "satoshi" with the actual satoshi's own words:

Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper

Limiting the block size to 1 MB makes the above quote impossible at some point in Bitcoin's future.

Bitcoin users relying on any 3rd party company (Blockstream or Lightning Network) goes against the very essence of why bitcoin was created.

[EternalWingsofGod]

The etymology is different
But the point put across is interesting and similar to Satoshi
It seems like a possible post from him and I would not suspend disbelief at this point in time. (Vistomail)

A PGP key would have been ideal but for this sort of statement at the least it seems to be worth meriting especially since he mentioned pool mining and centralization issues especially Nodes. Bitcoin is free and dynamic and should remain so but incentivizaion may be needed in some areas to keep the system as free as it is.

[coinableS]

let me debunk this imposter "satoshi" with the actual satoshi's own words:

Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper

Limiting the block size to 1 MB makes the above quote impossible at some point in Bitcoin's future.

Bitcoin users relying on any 3rd party company (Blockstream or Lightning Network) goes against the very essence of why bitcoin was created.

The "payment channels" and the way lighting network works is not a good solution IMO. Whose to say that XT is the ONLY solution to larger blocks? XT can support larger blocks sooner than core, that doesn't mean that core won't support larger blocks or that it is wise to switch to XT for the sole purpose of having a quick solution to larger blocks.

[Rampion]

A PGP key would have been ideal

I don't see why, considering that Satoshi never cryptographically signed any communication, despite of what uninformed journos are writing on mainstream media.

[Rampion]

let me debunk this imposter "satoshi" with the actual satoshi's own words:

Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper

Limiting the block size to 1 MB makes the above quote impossible at some point in Bitcoin's future.

Bitcoin users relying on any 3rd party company (Blockstream or Lightning Network) goes against the very essence of why bitcoin was created.

Considering that this message comes from the email address used to discuss Bitcoin for the very first time as back as 2008, and that the email headers confirm that it was not spoofed, it is reasonable to think that this message might very well have been sent by Satoshi himself. If its not, no big deal: just rememember that all these quotes coming from his posts are also unsigned, and they are stored in a centralized database that has been hacked a few times in the past....

I speculate that Satoshi never cryptographically signed any communication on purpose: he is looking for plausible deniability, and that's a way of ensuring no absolute power by a single, central authority who could irrefutably prove his identity.

The important thing: Bitcoin the protocol gives zero fucks about all this controversy.

[FreeJack2k]

This, to me, is like a father leaving his children with their mother and vanishing for four years, then sending her a letter expressing his disapproval of how she is raising his kids. Give me a break.

[coinableS]

I think if there is a satoshi nakamoto, he'd be pretty disappointed in the majority of the people in this community. Do you want to put a face to the technology that will change the world it has a couple. Charlie and Warren. SN handed a a beautiful technology to a bunch of get rich quick, self-centered gorias gorillas. Please evolve and learn more at LITECOIN.com

Did you really not read a single post in this thread just so you could spam an altcoin that everyone is already aware of?  This thread is about the alleged email from Satoshi scolding the XT fork not who he is or if he exists.