Szabo just tweeted this

[slaveforanunnak1]

https://www.reddit.com/r/NOXT/

Wow this has a lot of momentum 

 

I made it 15 minutes ago

[1714895215]

1714895215

[1714895215]

1714895215

[Dire]

Did he even mention how transaction fees increase when a backlog happens?

Yes.

And more besides.

See paragraph four, titled 'The block limit debate in a Nutshell'

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

[tvbcof]

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.

[knight22]

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.

Not at all. Not even his writing style.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.

Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.

[knight22]

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.

Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.

No signatures = fake

[crazywack]

I have seen some interesting treads somewhere. Comparing Satoshi emails and white paper to the writing styles of other big names in the community's writing styles. I would be interested to see if the newest email matched simmarly to some of his older stuff.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.

Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.

No signatures = fake

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?

[slaveforanunnak1]

I have seen some interesting treads somewhere. Comparing Satoshi emails and white paper to the writing styles of other big names in the community's writing styles. I would be interested to see if the newest email matched simmarly to some of his older stuff.

Doublespace after periods. Check.
British spelling.. check!

but those things can be faked of course.

[knight22]

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.

Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.

No signatures = fake

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?

Because at this point anybody can create a fake acount an clam to be Satoshi. No proof = no credibility.

[AgentofCoin]

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?

What about this? This says its Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/19e0c74df2162d4510db5df9e50d5ac53b38c498

[Bitcoininspace]

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.

The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.

Is this the next trick to hunt the price down so rich hands can buy cheaper bitcoins?

[slaveforanunnak1]

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?

What about this? This says its Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/19e0c74df2162d4510db5df9e50d5ac53b38c498

oh wow.. this is new to me

[AgentofCoin]

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?

What about this? This says its Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/19e0c74df2162d4510db5df9e50d5ac53b38c498

oh wow.. this is new to me

Yeah, it comes from the bitcoin.org Github, so it seems somewhat creditable.
I don't actually know where it originally came from though.
Maybe from an early Bitcoin release, like v 0.1.0, or something.

[AgentofCoin]

One of many examples of how this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. There is research on this for damn sure, he just didn't educate himself on it, so he tells the public that there is no research. This is the problem with media in general, presuming things that aren't true which causes a butterfly effect of misinformation and idiocracy.

So unlimited block limit is clearly bad, and 20Mb is generally agreed upon as pretty risky (up to 8sec propagation delays).  What’s wrong with just 8Mb?  Frankly, it’s probably ok.  Probably.  The problem is that nobody knows.  Because nobody has finished researching the issue to a satisfactory level yet.

I don't really want to get involved in what you are saying, but...
He actually said there is research, but it hasn't been finished to a satisfactory level yet.
In theory, no one really knows what will or will not happen.
The Core Devs are requesting more time for more tests.
At-least that is what i remember reading somewhere.

[coinableS]

No signatures = fake

What a cop out response.
The email address it was sent from is the same email used when Satoshi first wrote about bitcoin.

So instead of speculation, we can look at these facts:

1) It is Satoshi's email address
2) Either Satoshi wrote this email or a someone that gained access to his account did
3) A signed PGP message would have proven it was Satoshi
4) An unsigned PGP message doesn't prove OR DISPROVE that it was Satoshi

XT is not the only solution to larger blocks. Core could support larger blocks as well once there is a consensus and an actual need to increase the block size. Blocks aren't filing up yet, except during the 'stress tests'. A fork will be required either way to support larger blocks but the way this fork is being done with XT, I cannot get behind.

[slaveforanunnak1]

No signatures = fake

What a cop out response.
The email address it was sent from is the same email used when Satoshi first wrote about bitcoin.

So instead of speculation, we can look at these facts:

1) It is Satoshi's email address
2) Either Satoshi wrote this email or a someone that gained access to his account did
3) A signed PGP message would have proven it was Satoshi
4) An unsigned PGP message doesn't prove OR DISPROVE that it was Satoshi

XT is not the only solution to larger blocks. Core could support larger blocks as well once there is a consensus and an actual need to increase the block size. Blocks aren't filing up yet, except during the 'stress tests'. A fork will be required either way to support larger blocks but the way this fork is being done with XT, I cannot get behind.

Please bring any new info about the down sides of XT to /r/noxt

[Possum577]

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.

The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.

Presumably the free market will choose XT or Core, but did the free market have an opportunity to choose this XT over another XT, an alternative alternative? No.

[Crestington]

Interesting, I wonder what Crypto would be like without Bitcoin?

[Dire]

Did he even mention how transaction fees increase when a backlog happens?

Yes.

And more besides.

See paragraph four, titled 'The block limit debate in a Nutshell'

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

No it doesn't talk about it at all, in fact it uses almost no logic or data. Current transactions are way less than 7, but thats his reasoning why we need bigger blocks. It's irrelevant and unsubstantiated.

Erm. Turtle, I don't know if we are reading the same article, but the author of that article can generally be seen to be not in favor of XT (hence referring to an XT block as a 'Judas' block) and also not necessarily in favor of any block increase as he points out that at this stage it isn't needed, apart from when the stress test was implemented, and for scaling which he also points out can easily be brought out as a soft patch/fork.

Isn't that your stance also?

You appear to be against points which are your stated points elsewhere.