Craig Wright Threatens Bitcoin Community in Surprise Conference Speech

[pinkflower]

The core team is corrupt to the core.  The only possible 'scaling' solution they offer is Lightning Network,
which can't work without centralized banking hubs.  I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but it's true.

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

Yeah ok, but how can you use that argument to defend Craig Wright whos scamming everyone by saying hes the inventor of BTC, Jihan Wu and his Asic boost, and Roger Ver whos taking a big risk in supporting a hard fork?

Are you saying you are on the side of the scammer?

[YuginKadoya]

He is being funded by Bitmain just like Roger Ver.

Talks absolutely nonsense, obviously trolling, toxic to the community but has the support of the biggest mining company. Bitmain supports every retarded piece of shit there is who's against bitcoin. I think we should do something about it and end this crap once and for all.

Every miner you buy from Bitmain is helping those fucktards.

Bitmain needs to go.

I am more confuse than you, well if he would show himself in some conference regarding what will gonna happen on August 1 I think Craig Wright wants to stop it, and because of the risk involve in what is Segwit's gonna do with bitcoin but I never understand if wright is the real Satoshi because there are a lot out there claiming to be him and even if his proof are legit what is the reason behind of showing now in the public? Well my Answer would be, to stop what is about to happen in bitcoin the control over it and I think this is what the real Satoshi would want to do, but the question would be is he the real and legit one!

There is nothing legit about his proofs. Can't you tell that just by looking at his face? He is just another clown. I can claim myself to be satoshi but nobody will care or talk about it (because it is ridiculous) but when this clown does the same it is all over on the news. It is because they (his sponsors, bitmain/bitcoin.com) are spending money heavily on the news blogs/websites.

He is nothing, he is nobody. Just a clown.

Yup! I am pretty not 100% into him being Satoshi, we I have read and seen his twitter account that he is claiming that he created Ethereum, Doge, and yes bitcoin but the way he talks on all of his tweets are just not a proof that tells that he is the Original, well I think maybe I am just not into the impending event in August 1 so Satoshi showing his face in the public will be a good thing to stop it, but getting my head on this kind of thing is not really a good thing, and thinking to really hug and appreciate what Segwit's will have for us.

[BillyBobZorton]

We need to keep the nodes in the hands of the people to keep the network decentralized and safe, period.

A non-mining node doesn't decentralise the network, it only benefits you, by allowing you to confirm that you have received payment. Regular users, spending bitcoin have no need to run a full node 24/7.

If you've got a high enough value transaction coming in from someone you don't trust, you can spin one up and verify the chain yourself.

Running a full node is all about what its worth is to you. It has no bearing on the security of the network for anyone else. That comes from decentralised *mining*.

Running a full node brings the ideal setting of security:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk7nYxTOyQ


If you can convince me that users should give up on the possibility of running nodes then go on, but you haven't achieved that yet so keep trying.

[hv_]

We need to keep the nodes in the hands of the people to keep the network decentralized and safe, period.

A non-mining node doesn't decentralise the network, it only benefits you, by allowing you to confirm that you have received payment. Regular users, spending bitcoin have no need to run a full node 24/7.

If you've got a high enough value transaction coming in from someone you don't trust, you can spin one up and verify the chain yourself.

Running a full node is all about what its worth is to you. It has no bearing on the security of the network for anyone else. That comes from decentralised *mining*.

Running a full node brings the ideal setting of security:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk7nYxTOyQ


If you can convince me that users should give up on the possibility of running nodes then go on, but you haven't achieved that yet so keep trying.

hm. Depends what kind of user you are and how much connections your node is enabeling. Hold it like Trayce Meyer says. Do not have too much Ego.

[Joel_Jantsen]

1. Wright's nChain, which is attempting to flood patent offices with a Johnny-come-lately barrage of crypto patents.
2. Jihan Wu of Bitmain, the monopolistic miner/manufacturer that gave us ASICBoost and Antbleed.
3. Roger Ver of Bitcoin.com and r/btc, Bitcoin Unlimited infamy.

lol Craig has to pull out some shady shit every two months or so.
Fact is,doesn't matter who they got on their team,community support does! As far as I know,people give two shits about the people mentioned above.

[AGD]

Nothing he said at this presentation makes sense. Same goes for these nonsense slides and strange accusations.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

I am very confused now so what will all this mean for Bitcoin in August? Will there be a hardfork with a new 2nd Bitcoin chain or are they trying to stop that from happening? I would like to be enlightened as to what exactly they want to do and what this will accomplish in the end?

If the battle is going to step up from what i heard from the conference then we will have a hard fork and we will have a split,things are getting really interested and i am looking forward about what is the end result,do they destroy bitcoin or does we get a good technology ,just waiting to see all the dramas unfolding.

[ImHash]

We need to keep the nodes in the hands of the people to keep the network decentralized and safe, period.

A non-mining node doesn't decentralise the network, it only benefits you, by allowing you to confirm that you have received payment. Regular users, spending bitcoin have no need to run a full node 24/7.

If you've got a high enough value transaction coming in from someone you don't trust, you can spin one up and verify the chain yourself.

Running a full node is all about what its worth is to you. It has no bearing on the security of the network for anyone else. That comes from decentralised *mining*.

Running a full node brings the ideal setting of security:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk7nYxTOyQ


If you can convince me that users should give up on the possibility of running nodes then go on, but you haven't achieved that yet so keep trying.

What significant value a non-mining full node has for the network? all one needs to do is to only have the unspent data of blockchain and fires up hundreds of full nodes, that's only good for the time when miners are trying to change something in the code and need to have most of the nodes to validate the change, in that case having lots of full nodes just will make the miners job harder not impossible, because they can out number us by running more nodes than us.

[hv_]

We need to keep the nodes in the hands of the people to keep the network decentralized and safe, period.

A non-mining node doesn't decentralise the network, it only benefits you, by allowing you to confirm that you have received payment. Regular users, spending bitcoin have no need to run a full node 24/7.

If you've got a high enough value transaction coming in from someone you don't trust, you can spin one up and verify the chain yourself.

Running a full node is all about what its worth is to you. It has no bearing on the security of the network for anyone else. That comes from decentralised *mining*.

Running a full node brings the ideal setting of security:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk7nYxTOyQ


If you can convince me that users should give up on the possibility of running nodes then go on, but you haven't achieved that yet so keep trying.

What significant value a non-mining full node has for the network? all one needs to do is to only have the unspent data of blockchain and fires up hundreds of full nodes, that's only good for the time when miners are trying to change something in the code and need to have most of the nodes to validate the change, in that case having lots of full nodes just will make the miners job harder not impossible, because they can out number us by running more nodes than us.

Who is 'us'?

[jbreher]

To the contrary: It's the big blockers that will kill bitcoin, by giving up the network to corporations that can be easily located and manipulated by governments and global attackers.

People that think giving the power of nodes to corporations is a good idea are either retards or have agendas that align with said corporations.

You are not making any sense. You think that non-mining nodes have any power to determine the direction of bitcoin? You're dead-fucking-wrong, but let's go with that for argument. Those corporations you so fear can buy thousands of RaspPis for every one that you small-blockers are running. What are you going to do when your beloved-yet-irrelevant RaspPi 'nodes' are outnumbered 1000:1?

[Cuber Krypton]

Craig Wirght is an idiot and is full of himself. He is no hero. But if you can see a bit past personal qualities and actually look at some arguments, he is right in a few issues.

If you want to argue centralization, start looking at Core itself as well.

The centralization of core and software development is as decentralized as a big mining pool. Do not use different levers for the same issues.

We actually need more software, more wallets, more exchanges, which are more economic nodes. I for one have absolutely no interest in carrying the weight of a full node. Nor do I need it. I would not serve much purpose and my money is sufficient for me to vote.

I vote on my favourite wallet, my favourite exchange, my favourite chain, all of this with my unregulated unconfiscatable unransomed money.

If the Bitcoin brand had no value in itself, all these people would have forked off and not centralized around each other. I hear Core has 100 developers with different views and argue this is decentralization. I would rather Core had 5 developers that can push innovation as they see fit, and have 50 other softwares that give you a choice. The market will chose which one they like best. They do not have to hard fork on each other. They can just be different. And the Chain will follow majority.

This notion of decentralization within a single entity is hindering development at the rate of expansion.

Craig Wright at least sees that and soon I believe a lot of others will. Everyone is just affraid of losing the brand of the main chain. But future will ensure that and we will be left with real progress. If that costs you the speculative value of digital gold in the short term, you will be better off in the long term with a better, more robust and stronger coin. If you are affraid of change, sell now.

[Kakmakr]

We have seen these tactics before, when we had the Bitcoin XT vs Bitcoin Core battle. People will claim that they are Satoshi or use privileged access to the Alert system to send out Shill messages to confuse people. When you become desperate, you do not pull your punches and you will use any dirty tactic to win your opponent. < even biting off a bit of his ear, Mike you out there? >

Craig Wright has lots of money and knowledge and people will use him to throw around his weight to accomplish their goals. < This will not be the final card that will be dealt in this game >