Axiom of Resistance (Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi)

[franky1]

(yawn)(laugh)
all i see is insults
time to ignore him as he is just after some social drama.
moving on. ill just let doomad drive himself in circles
i gave him months to talk to devs.
i gave him months to research actual code
i gave him months to research devs desires(roadmap)

i will give him praise
him saying one team controlling code is good. letting in trojans is good and making the blockchain stagnate while other networks evolve is good. really does show his motivations are not that of a "bitcoiner". hope devs give him the christmas bonus he must be hoping for.

[1713545007]

1713545007

[1713545007]

1713545007

[DooMAD]

all i see is insults

Describing the futility of your efforts is not an insult.  You can't think of a viable way to prevent softforks.  How is it an insult to point out the simple fact that what you want isn't practical?  Stop dodging the real issue here.  You hate SegWit and Lightning, but you can't stop them.  So you make up a story and hope people buy it.  But you've now repeated the story so often that you believe it, as though it were actually true.  It isn't.  There was no consensus bypass.  Because there's no such thing.  Individuals can't prevent softforks.  Everyone is free to do what they want, but they can't stop others from doing the same.  If you break consensus, you get forked off. 

[KonstantinosM]

Ignoring all the franky stuff.

I've been in this space since 2012 and this is the first time I hear about the axiom of resistance.

I thought that it was self evident for most of the bitcoin community that we want to build something that is resistant in all sort of ways. One of the big problems with a bank account is that it can be frozen by the government that has jurisdiction over that bank. If bitcoin could not resist government force it would only take us half-way to economic freedom.

The government also stands for the people in a society, if your money can be controlled by other people, in this case the government, then it's not really your money, at least to the extent that it is being controlled, or able to be controlled by other people. And that extent is absolute. The government can freeze your account, potentially even take the money for themselves (civil forfeiture).

[drawingthesun]

In this article, besides repeatedly denouncing bitcoin and advertising for bcash, Craig Wright is crusading against:

... a group of misguided anarchistic socialists who refuse to work within the bounds of the law wanting to cry at the world and say, we do not want law, we want to say what the world is like. It is unfortunate that many grown men still act this way.

And yet another thing that pisses me off about Craig Wright, he has this massive hard on for following the law to the letter and if he was really Satoshi, he would have never created Bitcoin.

Back when Bitcoin was created it was debatable if someone could legally issue their own currency, especially one that doesn't have KYC baked in at the protocol level. You can be sure that the Government would have attacked Craig if they knew about him creating Bitcoin in the early days, as they could have easier deemed his 'rules' (bitcoin codebase) as being him issuing a currency (Bitcoin.)

Of course by the time people started to make cryptocurrency with their names attached, (Ethereum for example) the cat was out of the bag and it was too late to do anything about it.

Like the EtherDelta founder being targeted by the SEC, if Satoshi was not anonymous it's likely they would have been taken to court in the US if they were known around 2009-2011.

Thankfully Satoshi's anonymity allowed the pandoras box to remain open long enough that by the time we get to 2013 it's too late and too many people around the world are using it. I also suspect the CIA made use of Bitcoin and thus was a reason not to make it illegal in the first few years.

Anyways, this to me points to Craig not being Satoshi. As far as the law goes he seems to be too law abiding to ever have even considered something like Bitcoin.

There is no way Craig is Satoshi, the two people are almost 100% opposites.

It's sad that some people follow him and believe all this trite.

[aliashraf]

I've been in this space since 2012 and this is the first time I hear about the axiom of resistance.

I thought that it was self evident for most of the bitcoin community that we want to build something that is resistant in all sort of ways. One of the big problems with a bank account is that it can be frozen by the government that has jurisdiction over that bank. If bitcoin could not resist government force it would only take us half-way to economic freedom.

The government also stands for the people in a society, if your money can be controlled by other people, in this case the government, then it's not really your money, at least to the extent that it is being controlled, or able to be controlled by other people. And that extent is absolute. The government can freeze your account, potentially even take the money for themselves (civil forfeiture).

The problem with self evident facts is about them becoming transparent and being overlooked and eventually denied. Using a strong term like this, axiom of resistance is the cure.

And it is the right time to resurrect resistance, the cause, imo.

[Zin-Zang]

1. Wright never was Satoshi.

I am sorry to tell you all, Bitcoin is not, was not, and shall never be “permission-less”. In fact, nothing you ever create will be.

Bitcoin itself is not permission-less, Well Damn he had to get one thing right sooner or later.  


Axiom of Resistance

In other words there is an assumption that it is possible for a system to resist state control.
This is not accepted as a fact but deemed to be a reasonable assumption, due to the behavior of similar systems, on which to base the system.

One who does not accept the axiom of resistance is contemplating an entirely different system than Bitcoin.
If one assumes it is not possible for a system to resist state controls, conclusions do not make sense in the context of Bitcoin; just as conclusions in spherical geometry contradict Euclidean. For example, without the axiom, how can Bitcoin be trustless and a sound money?
Does not sound money in this case require trust that the state will not subvert its foundations?
This leads one to make obvious errors in an attempt to rationalize the conflict.

For a system  to resist the government, it needs the following
1.  The Ability to Hide from Government Military.               Bitcoin lost this due to the excessive energy usage required
2.  The Ability for anyone to make transactions:                 Bitcoin lost this when the Elite's ASIC miners took over.
3.  The Ability to move operations at a moment's notice.     Bitcoin lost this when ASICS required warehouses.

There are a few crypto coins that can still meet these requirements.
One of them will be the resistance to the Global Elite.

But nothing is set in stone and it will be a battle , of which the global elite will hold nothing back.
They will reign pain and misery on anyone that fights them.

Chinese Proverb
It is a Gift and a Curse to be born in interesting times.

Well Boys and Girls those of you wanting true financial freedom, the next few years are going to get interesting.
God Bless & Good Luck , we're going to need it.  

[aliashraf]

For a system  to resist the government, it needs the following
1.  The Ability to Hide from Government Military.               Bitcoin lost this due to the excessive energy usage required
2.  The Ability for anyone to make transactions:                 Bitcoin lost this when the Elite's ASIC miners took over.
3.  The Ability to move operations at a moment's notice.     Bitcoin lost this when ASICS required warehouses.

There are a few crypto coins that can still meet these requirements.
One of them will be the resistance to the Global Elite.

But nothing is set in stone and it will be a battle , of which the global elite will hold nothing back.
They will reign pain and misery on anyone that fights them.

Chinese Proverb
It is a Gift and a Curse to be born in interesting times.

Well Boys and Girls those of you wanting true financial freedom, the next few years are going to get interesting.
God Bless & Good Luck , we're going to need it.  

Bitcoin is the most inspiring and original cryptocurrency, it is not just another coin. PoW is necessary because you can't switch from some elites to others in the name of freedom.
Money needs to be based on actual work and energy, not trust, not reputation, not convention, not debt as the source of value to be legitimate and to be set free.
But this whole PoW/PoS thing is off-topic we are facing more serious problems right now. Check how Trump's SEC cyber chief is warning against the whole crypto community not to escape from their surveillance.

[AnAiAk]

Of course he is not. Gavin said in an interview that Craig was satoshi to hide his true identity. I know that Gavin maintains contact with Satoshi only through messages (outside the forum), but his true identity is not known by anyone (not even by Gavin).


 Att. -----. 19i1p0^

[Wind_FURY]

Of course he is not. Gavin said in an interview that Craig was satoshi to hide his true identity. I know that Gavin maintains contact with Satoshi only through messages (outside the forum), but his true identity is not known by anyone (not even by Gavin).

Are you telling us that Gavin Andresen was trying to protect the identity of a person that even he himself does not know the true identity of? That was hard to put into words. Hahahaha.

[franky1]

Anyways, this to me points to Craig not being Satoshi. As far as the law goes he seems to be too law abiding to ever have even considered something like Bitcoin.

craig is not law abiding. craig is a scammer

but craig loves public identity and analytics he would happily grab peoples identity and monetise it. he is not into anonymity/pseudonymity. he has been too in peoples face about garnering fame and trying to make a name for himself in anyway he can

he is also not into coding. he gets other people to code

he just wants to make a name for himself and use the fame to get people to hand him money
the reason he pretends to follow the law. is because if he gets arrested. then all his aussie legal issues will latch on and he will be in bigger trouble

[DooMAD]

The problem with self evident facts is about them becoming transparent and being overlooked and eventually denied. Using a strong term like this, axiom of resistance is the cure.

And it is the right time to resurrect resistance, the cause, imo.

Using strong terms arguably doesn't achieve anything.  It's our actions that define how resistant the chain is.  If you weaken the network's resistance by making it more costly to run a full node, or you inadvertently introduce a critical vulnerability while making radical changes, using strong terms won't magically make things better.  Which is why our actions so far have been to avoid making it costly to run a full node and avoid making radical changes to the protocol.

[aliashraf]

The problem with self evident facts is about them becoming transparent and being overlooked and eventually denied. Using a strong term like this, axiom of resistance is the cure.

And it is the right time to resurrect resistance, the cause, imo.

Using strong terms arguably doesn't achieve anything.  It's our actions that define how resistant the chain is.  If you weaken the network's resistance by making it more costly to run a full node, or you inadvertently introduce a critical vulnerability while making radical changes, using strong terms won't magically make things better.  Which is why our actions so far have been to avoid making it costly to run a full node and avoid making radical changes to the protocol.

َAlthough you are right here (what a surprise  ) but it is just half of the truth about the situation, the other half is about the cause and the non-linearity of socioeconomic phenomenons.

Freezing bitcoin code may be helpful for protecting it from simple threats but won't do anything about unexpected and complex social behaviors. For instance when Slush proposed his pool service, nobody had a clue about how sophisticated the situation is. Satoshi was around yet (he disappeared few weeks later) and made no serious contribution, just a pure technical comment, it took years for pools to be understood as a serious centralization threat.

Bitcoin is not a piece of code, it is not tcp/ip or snmp it is complex socioeconomic protocol based on game theory played by sophisticated actors among them banks, governments, surveillance institutions, scammers,  pool operators, ASIC manufacturers, ambitious developers, academicians, ...

The most stupid idea for bitcoin is ignoring its need for adoption and change to remain focused on its cause. Leaving bitcoin as is, is nothing less than betraying it by putting it in danger of being neutralized and failing its mission: resistance.

I do care about software bugs but do you care about the resistance?

[vgk88]

I do not think that Craig is Satoshi. Craig is trying to deceive the whole cryptocurrency community. But his conflict with Roger Ver can be useful for Bitcoin. This will show that hard forks are a bad idea.

[franky1]

more costly to run a node??

um.. sorry but you can get a PC with more space and ram for less cost than 2009. (its cheaper to run a node than before)
even something like a 256gb microsd card (the size of a fingernail) proves against the whole myth of "nodes will need servers"

even the fact that 56kbit/s dialup would be 4mbyte/10min..
so with fiber which is 1000x faster then dialup. again proves against the myth of nodes on servers

but the funny part is that resisting developing onchain using the excuse of "cost to run node".. while letting those same decision makers then inflight upgrade new stuff.. where that inflight upgrade mechanism is a backdoor (trojan gateway) is a security risk to the network.

and all we hear is the muttering rants of "trust the devs"

seems some axioms have been lost on some people

as for mining..
block creaters cannot create/alter the rules... they can only collate transactions to crate blocks of data(not new code). it does not matter if its 10exahash or 1zetahash, if they tried to make a block thats not within the rule they would get rejected. there is no threat. bar empty blocks (which devs can create a rule to avoid/reduce risk of)
pools stay within the rules to get paid. if they break the rules they simply dont get paid and the next pools gets the win.

its a simple game of 100m running. if the first cross the line is found to be cheating. the runner up wins. and the runner up is usually able to cross th line milliseconds aftr the first one.

mining is not a 'if the first runner does it in 10 seconds then the second runner must take 20 seconds to run 100m and the 3rd racer must take 30 seconds.. you will finds that the reality is that the runner up is only a short period behind the LUCKY first runner.
(^ pre-empting the block delay myth of rejecting blocks ^)

and as for the centralisation myth of "china 50%". slush is in thailand, f2pool is everywhere. and the stratums tagged as "antpool" are in iceland, georgia, canada, mongolia, china, and other places.

but lets compare. GPU mining "OMG centralisation AMD own mining and have their openCL boost that out competes geforce"
also asics in general whether it be bitfury avalon or bitmain are WAY WAY WAY cheaper and electric efficient than GPU

take the stats.
50exa
that would require 10 trillion PC's or 330 billion GPU or just 3.5million asics.
where an ASIC is just the cost of 2GPU not 10,000

so. when it comes to bitcoin security and resisting protocol control. its the CODE people should be concentrating on. not the social drama that has nothing to do with code

[Wind_FURY]

I didn't started this to re-new an old hoax story. I'm curious about how other bitcoiners think about this issue.

What were you expecting to get out if this? That the "assumptions that could lead something to be true" expressed in the "Axiom of Resistance" might be applicable in the "assumptions" of Craig Wright to be truly Satoshi?

[aliashraf]

I didn't started this to re-new an old hoax story. I'm curious about how other bitcoiners think about this issue.

What were you expecting to get out if this? That the "assumptions that could lead something to be true" expressed in the "Axiom of Resistance" might be applicable in the "assumptions" of Craig Wright to be truly Satoshi?

Actually, I didn't started it to discuss Wright, I used him as an excuse, now I'm realizing that the man is really funny as he is practically engaged in a "taking ownership of bitcoin" program. The man is really stupid by any measure: fake enemy, fake war, fake victory, fake power!  

So, let's talk about Craig Wright a bit more  

My argument:
Craig Wright's claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is ultimately false as he does not support axiom of resistance and is not a bitcoiner, no matter he has or has not access to Satoshi's private keys. His probable access to the keys could be used as an evidence for conspiracy accusations against him in courts.

[AGD]

Somebody told me, that Gavin confirmed Craig beeing Satoshi only to distract from the fact that he is Satoshi. See the meta game?

[Kakmakr]

One reason why I think Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, is the fact that he is trying too hard to be Satoshi Nakamoto. You must understand that Satoshi never tried to be in the limelight, from the start. He avoided being Dox'ed at all cost, because he wanted to stay anonymous.

Craig Wright is the exact opposite of that and he is trying his utmost best to be in the limelight. You do not need Axiom Resistance to tell you that, it is common sense.  

[Wind_FURY]

I didn't started this to re-new an old hoax story. I'm curious about how other bitcoiners think about this issue.

What were you expecting to get out if this? That the "assumptions that could lead something to be true" expressed in the "Axiom of Resistance" might be applicable in the "assumptions" of Craig Wright to be truly Satoshi?

Actually, I didn't started it to discuss Wright, I used him as an excuse, now I'm realizing that the man is really funny as he is practically engaged in a "taking ownership of bitcoin" program. The man is really stupid by any measure: fake enemy, fake war, fake victory, fake power!  

Ok, I perceived the argument from the other way around. Haha.

So, let's talk about Craig Wright a bit more  

My argument:
Craig Wright's claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is ultimately false as he does not support axiom of resistance and is not a bitcoiner, no matter he has or has not access to Satoshi's private keys. His probable access to the keys could be used as an evidence for conspiracy accusations against him in courts.

My answer would be, whether Craig Wright supports the axiom or not is irrelevant. If I express my support for the axiom would that make me Satoshi? How can I be if I don't have the keys to prove I am him?

[aliashraf]

So, let's talk about Craig Wright a bit more  

My argument:
Craig Wright's claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is ultimately false as he does not support axiom of resistance and is not a bitcoiner, no matter he has or has not access to Satoshi's private keys. His probable access to the keys could be used as an evidence for conspiracy accusations against him in courts.

My answer would be, whether Craig Wright supports the axiom or not is irrelevant. If I express my support for the axiom would that make me Satoshi? How can I be if I don't have the keys to prove I am him?

Holding a key just proves one thing: you have rights to spend a balance, not holding it means you can't do it. Your identity has nothing to do with your possession of keys, it is a social issue and should be addressed socially.

It is why I think Wright's social behavior leaves no space for him to steal Satoshi icon, he is not a bitcoiner as I discussed above, being Satoshi himself? Noways!