Long term advance notice!

[davewantsmoore]

and pretend that

Oh, did I not acknowledge or reference what you said?!

I am not "pretending" anything.  

[1714100750]

1714100750

[1714100750]

1714100750

[1714100750]

1714100750

[THX 1138]

Relaying as an unbiased messenger:

and pretend that

Oh, did I not acknowledge or reference what you said?!

I am not "pretending" anything.   

You entirely ignore the highly detailed discussion upthread which refutes the pithy incorrect assertions you’re making. I will provide links below. In effect, you’re pretending that your pithy assertions weren’t already discussed and refuted earlier in the thread.

I had explained that BSV’s theory (of miner’s converging on an adaptive block size) is nonsense.

Not BSV's theory.  Bitcoin's.

There was no block size cap in the original bitcoin protocol, and one was only added to mitigate an attack vector which is no longer economically viable.

Incorrect.

This was already discussed upthread. You refuse to read the thread and then pop in at the end of the thread to make statements which are incongruent with all the prior discussion.

The following linked post is where I had (upthread) quoted Satoshi and explained precisely why you are incorrect:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51390187#msg51390187

And here follows a link to the post where I replied in great detail on the subject in a response to @jbreher:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51440603#msg51440603

And here follows a link to my first post in this thread (relayed by @Last of the V8s) wherein I explained that Craig Wright’s “long-term advance warning” is really about a SegWit attack against Core Bitcoin to restore the legacy Bitcoin with immutable block size. Craig isn’t tell you this, because he is using BSV as a decoy to deceive everyone as to the true aims of his plans and his globalist backers:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51306669#msg51306669

As for the big picture of what is going on, who created Bitcoin, and why they are using Craig Wright as their pawn to obtain global totalitarian control, read the following linked post (and then the entire linked thread):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52251343#msg52251343

In summary, Bitcoin will (after this current bounce) soon decline back to the “21 EMA” level (~$8500 or below as was the case in June 2013), then slowly climb over $13k by Jan 2020, and then the pattern of 2013 will repeat with a moonshot before the May 2020 halving event which will mimic the price action of 2013:

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/1QSGColK-My-Secret-Chart-For-When-To-To-Buy-Bitcoin-In-A-Bullish-Trend/
https://twitter.com/JacobCanfield/status/1164185278262718464/photo/1

The BTC price at the halving needs to be very high, so the mining difficulty is very high so that when Craig dumps 850,000 Core BTC (he will split his BTC before loading onto the exchanges and keep the legacy, immutable blocksize BTC) and then initiates the mining attack to force Core’s protocol to fork off, then as the price of BTC craters to below $1000, the Core protocol fork block chain (after being forked off from the legacy Bitcoin by the taking of the 6+ million BTC SegWit “anyone can spend” booty) will grind to a halt. Blocks will be found perhaps once a week. And the difficulty will not readjust for a year or years. At that point Core is dead and the exchanges will be fleeced and bankrupt. Massive chaos comin May 2020 if Craig keeps his promise.

The legacy, immutable blocksize Bitcoin will be the blockchain that survives and is eventually used to be the backing of the new global currency Facebook Libra, when the powers-that-be are ready to weaken the U.S. dollar and assert their resultant totalitarian control of global monetary policy (and the totalitarian political power that will provide them). You fools! We are going to be entirely enslaved in the 666 system.

I think you have no idea about my technological acumen. I for example wrote a four-part blog on blockchain consensus algorithm technologies:

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers

Lastly, metaphorically God is allowing Satan to run amok and enslave the people, because the people have forsaken God. They people of the world ridicule the wisdom in the Bible such as for example how Jesus purportedly said as recorded in Matthew 19 that we are married forever to every person we have sex with. We truly get the government (King) to lord over us as we deserve for our sins, c.f. the Lord’s warning 1 Samuel 8. Repent or ye shall eventually be wallowing in eternal hell.

[jbreher]

I had explained that BSV’s theory (of miner’s converging on an adaptive block size) is nonsense.

Not BSV's theory.  Bitcoin's.

There was no block size cap in the original bitcoin protocol, and one was only added to mitigate an attack vector which is no longer economically viable.

Incorrect.

This was already discussed upthread. You refuse to read the thread and then pop in at the end of the thread to make statements which are incongruent with all the prior discussion.

The following linked post is where I had (upthread) quoted Satoshi and explained precisely why you are incorrect:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51390187#msg51390187

And here follows a link to the post where I replied in great detail on the subject in a response to @jbreher:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51440603#msg51440603

For the record, the following is what I believe forms the core of Shelby's argument about the block size and immutability from the above quoted post:

See, here's the kicker, Shelby. Let's set aside the issue that -- given enough time and incentive -- the difference between hard and soft forks are merely academic. Set aside the issue that further increases to the max block size are impossible due to immutability. The fact is that the original protocol (i.e., satoshi's 0.1 protocol) -- which you refer to as immutable -- had no 1 MB max block size cap.

At 0.1 there was no block size limit in the protocol. The code (not the protocol) was limited in that no provision had yet been coded to allow a block to span multiple TCP segments. But even that limitation was well in excess of 1MB.

Satoshi was very, very, very clever. Which is to be expected because he is/was (a think tank of) the global elite.

He made it appear that he added the 1 MB later as an after thought, but of course he planned it from the beginning. He knew that Bitcoin would start out centralized and grow more decentralized. He knew that eventually the centralized block size limits as a default in the reference client would eventually be insufficient to contain the forces of profit motive.

I believe he absolutely never intended to raise the 1 MB. And that he absolutely intended for there to be a 1 MB limit from the inception when he launched Bitcoin. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Nevertheless the fact is that there was a de facto centralized limit on the block size even before he added the 1 MB hard cap to the code. It was the default in the client.

So what you claim to be an "immutable" protocol has already undergone a change in the exact dimension you claim it cannot.

Nope. When Satoshi wrote “v0.1” he was implicitly referring to what he was in centralized control over. The 1 MB cap was there from the start, in his head. He had the default which was lower than 1 MB and he was watching and waiting until he had to make his move. He made it. Then he disappeared. Simple as that.

Now I am not arguing against your claim of centralization pressure. But as pointed out above, the exact same pressures are being felt on all public PoW blockchains. Not only BSV, but BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, whatever.

Nope. Not on real, immutable Bitcoin.

Which, if I am not mistaken, essentially boils down to 'Satoshi always had a 1MB limit - it was in his head from the start, so it was operative from the start. Just trust me on this'.

I ain't buying it. Insufficient evidence presented to support such a conclusion.

Although I'm sure this point will result in another interminable time sink of a sidebar. If it ends up -- as I expect -- seeming tangential, I'll just demur in advance.

[THX 1138]

Relaying a reply:

Which, if I am not mistaken, essentially boils down to 'Satoshi always had a 1MB limit - it was in his head from the start, so it was operative from the start. Just trust me on this'.

I ain't buying it. Insufficient evidence presented to support such a conclusion.

You’re mistaken. You failed to quote the upthread discussion I linked to from my prior post, in which I had explained that there was a defacto blocksize (i.e. a defacto Schelling point) limit coded in the default client software that most pools were using. I believe Luke Jr. (a pool operator and Bitcoin dev) may have been the main dissenter, as AFAIK he has always been advocating extremely small blocks (apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB).

Satoshi only had to become explicit about the 1MB when the feuding about it reached a crescendo. And then Satoshi conveniently ignored pleas to raise the 1 MB before he conveniently suddenly disappeared when those pleas started to reach a crescendo again.

IOW, Bitcoin’s block size was essentially implicitly centralized  during the early years.

Although I'm sure this point will result in another interminable time sink of a sidebar. If it ends up -- as I expect -- seeming tangential, I'll just demur in advance.

And whose fault is that? If you and other readers would properly assimilate information, the discussion would not need to be repeated over and over again.

[andreibi]

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.

[ðºÞæ]

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.

In case you are new to bitcoin, selling 821,050 bitcoins is some serious showing of "proof of keys".

BTW in a updated post he said he will donate the money from the sale of BTC to education facilities and maximize profits.

I have about 8 billion dollars’ worth of bitcoin and I’m donating them. Not as a joke. I’m giving them away. I want them to go to education. So my BTC is not going to go to me. I’ll keep my bitcoin — the bitcoin I created, the bitcoin I still work on. But the BTC, the whatever forks — I don’t really care — in 2020 I’m going to give them away…

[Oilacris]

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.

For people who do know with CW bullshit propaganda will just simply ignore this but the sad fact that there are still newbies who are being mislead with this bullsh*t news around.

[davewantsmoore]

Which, if I am not mistaken, essentially boils down to 'Satoshi always had a 1MB limit - it was in his head from the start, so it was operative from the start. Just trust me on this'.

No, you are incorrect.

[STT]

I'll read any story but doesnt mean I like it or believe any of it to be true.   The opposing dynamic here seems to be the idea of an open market protocol that allows any block size to be decided variably but also we have one person seemingly in control with which everyone else has to agree.    So if the market doesnt agree, when does that become accepted or is the word of one person continually repeated as the correct direction.
    So far BTC is the choice of the free market, I dont mind the idea of various protocols and ideas of what might work but I dont see why its always apparently in conflict with BTC.

Craig Wright (CSW) has also confirmed my aforementioned expectation of selling Core BTC for Tether and other USD pegged assets:

Didn't we already have something similar to this and it ended up a buying opportunity if anything.     A price established on low volume or with limited participation in the market is not especially accurate.    I can sell someone my bitcoin for 100 dollars like we went back a few years but even if it showed on the graph as a valid order transacted, it doesn't have significance and nobody cares for more then a moment.
   I'm sure there is more then 1 unit for sale but even so, the market overall doesn't decide a price by the views of the minority even if it drops short term.

[boomboom]

@shelby, if we store our bitcoins in a legacy address (starts with a 1) are we OK if your hypothesis is true? Will our bitcoins be safe & usable on the original legacy immutable satoshi chain?

[davewantsmoore]

Not BSV's theory.  Bitcoin's.

Perhaps people misunderstood what I meant.

I mean:

BSV is bitcoin.  Bitcoin is BSV.   BSV is the original bitcoin protocol  (or as as close as you get, right now - before undoing the remainder of the idiocy that BTC developers changed in the protocol)

BTC was forked away (segwit) from the original bitcoin protocol (which people refer today as BSV) in August 2017.

It was known as BCH for a while... but then BCH also forked away (and took the name with them).

Bitcoin certainly can’t scale-out decentralized

You didn't explain "why this matters".

Hint:  It doesn't .... at best a large/majority miner can disrupt the system ... they cannot attack it in any other effective way.    But this "power of disruption" applies to any other large player in any (!!!) other type of system.   It's the natural state of things.

@shelby, if we store our bitcoins in a legacy address (starts with a 1) are we OK if your hypothesis is true? Will our bitcoins be safe & usable on the original legacy immutable satoshi chain?

The "original chain" is BSV.    BTC diverged from the original chain in August 2017.

Small blocks doesn't change or stop this problem .... all it does is damage the usefulness of the blockchain.

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO.

I'll give you a big hint... it is not primarily to do with possessing keys, or "being satoshi" .... and only "newbies" (also idiots) think "proof of keys" is not incredibly naive.   Anyone saying it is either stupid, or being disingenuous.

The people who matter are those who say things about bitcoin which are both useful and correct.

The opposing dynamic here seems to be the idea of an open market protocol that allows any block size to be decided variably

Yes... that is how the bitcoin protocol originally worked.    A cap was added to protect against an attack vector, which is no longer economically viable.    It was ALWAYS discussed by satoshi as something which would need to be increased (and ultimately removed) before it actually LIMITED the available blockspace below the current number of tx.

I believe Luke Jr. (a pool operator and Bitcoin dev)

... and one of the biggest idiots which ever lived.   

And then Satoshi conveniently ignored pleas to raise the 1 MB before he conveniently suddenly disappeared when those pleas started to reach a crescendo again.

Not ignored.    However, only miners can effect the block size increasing.... by actually mining larger blocks.   Any one miner "going it alone" would be forked.

[jbreher]

apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB

Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.

[THX 1138]

Relaying another message:

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.

In case you are new to bitcoin, selling 821,050 bitcoins is some serious showing of "proof of keys".

How quickly the myopic fools[flippant trolls] around here forget Craig crashed the BTC price from $6k to $3k:



Also it was on purpose that Craig Wright (who is just a pawn or front man actor for the globalists) was tasked to act like a fool, so that everyone would dismiss his warning. The globalists (who created Bitcoin) have fabricated a masterplan. Again I will link you to the information as follows:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52251343#msg52251343

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg52254095#msg52254095

I'll read any story but doesnt mean I like it or believe any of it to be true.   The opposing dynamic here seems to be the idea of an open market protocol that allows any block size to be decided variably but also we have one person seemingly in control with which everyone else has to agree.    So if the market doesnt agree, when does that become accepted or is the word of one person continually repeated as the correct direction.
    So far BTC is the choice of the free market, I dont mind the idea of various protocols and ideas of what might work but I dont see why its always apparently in conflict with BTC.

Craig Wright (CSW) has also confirmed my aforementioned expectation of selling Core BTC for Tether and other USD pegged assets:

Didn't we already have something similar to this and it ended up a buying opportunity if anything.     A price established on low volume or with limited participation in the market is not especially accurate.    I can sell someone my bitcoin for 100 dollars like we went back a few years but even if it showed on the graph as a valid order transacted, it doesn't have significance and nobody cares for more then a moment.
   I'm sure there is more then 1 unit for sale but even so, the market overall doesn't decide a price by the views of the minority even if it drops short term.

STT, you need to read the Rogue Wave thread discussion. Also you’re conflating BSV with the legacy, immutable Bitcoin, so it seems you really haven’t read much at all. You are ostensibly clueless about the relative economic impacts of a SegWit “anyone can spend” donations booty taking attack versus what you observed Craig do late last year. What he did late last year was just a tiny thing compared to what is coming in May. Here is a link to the thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157964.0

@shelby, if we store our bitcoins in a legacy address (starts with a 1) are we OK if your hypothesis is true? Will our bitcoins be safe & usable on the original legacy immutable satoshi chain?

Yes, but as I wrote in one of the recent posts, I’m concerned that soon we’ll be prevented from cashing out.

Realize after the SegWit donations booty taking attack, legacy immutable Bitcoin (not BSV) which survives (as Core is destroyed) is going to be viewed as a the theft-coin. Also in theory Craig may bankrupt the exchanges who deal in SegWit addresses for their BTC. Perhaps even all the institutions hodling Bakkt futures will see their BTC go “poof and then it’s gone” if Bakkt doesn’t follow my advice to hodl in 1 legacy addresses (I did message them about it, they didn’t reply and they have promoted a roundtable discussion with Adam Back as a guest speaker). The powers-that-be ostensibly deem it’s necessary to destroy public confidence in decentralized cryptocurrency so that they can bring in centralized Libra as the alternative. So the cratering of the cryptocosm will be intentional and they don’t care about low BTC prices for a few years because they have a long-term plan horizon. Have you read this linked post about the BOE governor saying Libra should replace the U.S. dollar:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52251343#msg52251343

Also today Trump’s administration announced that Chinese drug lords are using Bitcoin. And here is another reason BTC is becoming tainted:

In an attempt to curb the impact of the sell-offs, she has recommended that Peckshield and blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis analyze the flows more closely, noting that PlusToken appears to be moving their funds in small batches of 50-100 BTC into exchanges.

So make sure all your paperwork is in order. Proof of source of funds, etc. Even then, the world is going to turn very unfair. And you may simply be denied, as non-VIP Americans were denied foreign bank accounts by the FATCA.

The Bitcoin party might be coming to a close for many of us. Perhaps adjust our expectations.

BSV is bitcoin.  Bitcoin is BSV.   BSV is the original bitcoin protocol  (or as as close as you get, right now - before undoing the remainder of the idiocy that BTC developers changed in the protocol)

BTC was forked away (segwit) from the original bitcoin protocol (which people refer today as BSV) in August 2017.

It was known as BCH for a while... but then BCH also forked away (and took the name with them).

Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision. Read the Rogue Wave thread and educate yourself.

BSV is nothing but a decoy shitcoin. Craig’s globalist backers are fooling you. They will force Core to fork off and destroy itself. What remains will be the legacy, immutable Bitcoin.

Bitcoin certainly can’t scale-out decentralized

You didn't explain "why this matters".

Hint:  It doesn't .... at best a large/majority miner can disrupt the system ... they cannot attack it in any other effective way.    But this "power of disruption" applies to any other large player in any (!!!) other type of system.   It's the natural state of things.

What you wrote is Not Even Wrong. 

You’re off in left field derp.

Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system. And thus it’s no better than Facebook Libra. And Libra will launch with a billion prospective users.

Small blocks doesn't change or stop this problem .... all it does is damage the usefulness of the blockchain.

More nonsense. The dichotomy is between immutable and variable blocksize. The former is a decentralized Schelling point and the latter is only centralized. Period.

The people who matter are those who say things about bitcoin which are both useful and correct.

Thus we can now ignore you.

It was ALWAYS discussed by satoshi as something which would need to be increased (and ultimately removed) before it actually LIMITED the available blockspace below the current number of tx.

You’re lying. I already referred you to the detailed discussion I had with @jbreher which we have somewhat summarized again.

And then Satoshi conveniently ignored pleas to raise the 1 MB before he conveniently suddenly disappeared when those pleas started to reach a crescendo again.

Not ignored.

Satoshi actually did not respond again in the thread where the pleas were made. And then he conveniently disappeared. He globalist friends who control Wikileaks (Assange was living with Rothschild’s attorney) conveniently had it start accepting BTC payments so Satoshi could make an excuse to disappear without addressing the pleas for raising the blocksize limit.

How much more disinformation are you going to spew in this thread?

[davewantsmoore]

What you wrote is Not Even Wrong. 

You’re off in left field derp.
Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system.

How?

A miner cannot censor my transaction.  I do not practise address re-use... they do not know what my tx is, or who it is between.  They're economically incentivised to mine it (via tx fee).

How does a large miner reduce "permissionless"?
The whole beauty of the blockchain.... is that the don't/can't.    It's why the blockchain is actually good technology.

I know that you can't explain in detail how this "censorship and lack of permissionless system" actually comes about  (in a way which isn't easy to point out the flaws in)....  but I'd like to see you try.

Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision

Oh dear.  Are you for real?
It is a fork in the protocol.  The nodes have to decide.  The hodlers are not relevant.

The dichotomy is between immutable and variable blocksize

Explain to everyone how larger/variable blocksizes make for not-immutable.

You’re lying

It's good thing that Satoshi's posts have been recorded, and people can go and see for themselves what he said.

How much more disinformation are you going to spew in this thread?

Yes... I'm not sure I can compete on that front /S   .... so I will leave.

I just feel sorry for the hordes of people who have been fooled by the "centralised mining destroys trustlessness" idiocracy.    You can't explain how it does that.... because it doesn't.

[THX 1138]

Relaying a response:

apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB

Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.

Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.

Upthread I quoted (actually @figmentofmyass quoted and I responded) where Satoshi stated that “v0.1” locked the major protocol decisions in stone. His point was that once he left (given that he was the creator of Bitcoin), the protocol would be immutable. When Satoshi made the decision to explicitly announce setting a hard limit of 1 MB in the client (before that any blocksize was only apparently a suggested limit, which implicitly provided a Schelling point) and then chose to disappear without addressing the pleas to raise the blocksize again, he had left us with a legacy, immutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit.

It doesn’t matter what I say or what anyone thinks. The fact is that Satoshi inserted a very clever game theory into his legacy, immutable Bitcoin, such that all soft forks will eventually hard fork off and destroy themselves. This is apparently what is going to happen to Core Bitcoin probably at of the halving event May 2020 if Craig Wright is not bluffing. Because the SegWit “anyone can spend” booty has piled up (to last time I checked 6+ million BTC dangling as a carrot in front of the miners).

And it doesn’t matter what I say or you think about immutability. Variable blocksizes are not a decentralized Schelling point. They only converge to a single longest chain if the mining is sufficiently centralized so as to enforce a Schelling point. IOW, variable blocksizes change the game theory of proof-of-work to a power vacuum that requires essentially 33 – 51% mining centralization. Why is this game theory concept so difficult for you to wrap your mind around?

Variable blocksize is incongruent with one of the most important attributes of the game theory of decentralized proof-of-work as follows:

In POW, it is always easier and more profitable to create a sub-coalition to overthrow a coalition than it was to create the first coalition. This fact makes it so that no miner is interested in forming coalitions, because they know it is probably a trick to steal their hashpower.

From the miner's perspective, if they participate in your coalition they will probably lose all their profits. So the size of the bribe you would need to pay is about the same as the cost of renting the hashpower and mining yourself.

You go right ahead with your willful myopia and lose all your wealth. Don’t let me stop you. I’ve tried to help you, but you’re as impenetrable as a stubborn donkey. Wealth (extreme luxury) is apparently so important to you and the Lord instructs us that riches stored on earth (instead of up in heaven) will grow wings and fly away.

What you wrote is Not Even Wrong. 

You’re off in left field derp.

Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system.

How?

A miner cannot censor my transaction.

Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.

In order for there to be an enforceable Schelling Point that will converge to a single longest chain with a variable blocksize, then some group of miners have to agree to censor all blocks which do not conform to a specific blocksize limit of choice. Otherwise the chain will implicitly fork off into numbers forks because of disagreement. Upthread (or perhaps it was in another thread) I had discussed the specific mechanisms in BSV and explained why this is still the case. I am not going to repeat that again. There is a blog comment on my Steemit blog that explains it in detail. And no I don’t feel like digging for it again. Sorry I am not going to revisit all my past discussion over and over again, everytime some new disinformation agent comes into a thread and refuses to do his homework. How about you go digging for it. if you’re sincere.

Note it may not actually require 51% to censor and set Schelling points. It depends on how smoothly distributed are those who vehemently want to override any choices. Otherwise with a higher orphan rate and much greater number of blocks to orphaning (aka convergence) then less than 51% can suffice.

I know that you can't

I just did.

Why do you compare yourself to me? Do realize I have been studying and doing deep research about blockchain technology and theory since 2013. I have had no other job during these past 6 years. Thus I might know a few concepts about blockchain game theory which you don’t. Who are you?

Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision

Oh dear.  Are you for real?
It is a fork in the protocol.  The nodes have to decide.  The hodlers are not relevant.

Read the Rogue Wave thread and educate yourself.

Miners vote again every block. The vote is never final w.r.t. to protocol changes. The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend” and thus a huge booty piles up for the miners to partake. This is an asymmetrical advantage for the legacy protocol, because when the miners take the booty, Core hard forks off and thus all the hodlers who were holding legacy addresses (i.e. begin with a 1 instead of a 3) get both legacy and free air-drop Core tokens after the fork. Whereas, those idiots who were hodling Core (aka SegWit) addresses only get Core tokens after the fork.

So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep. Normally all free air drop tokens are sold and everyone chooses to keep legacy Bitcoin. And Craig Wrights cratering of the Core price (and bankrupting all the exchanges which hodl in SegWit addresses) will help to insure that will be the case.

You’re lying

It's good thing that Satoshi's posts have been recorded, and people can go and see for themselves what he said.

Yeah here is the thread and post where someone remarked that if the limit was not removed then it would be almost impossible to ever change it. Satoshi did not reply. You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea right before his globalist handlers arranged for an excuse for him to disappear (c.f. also).

[jbreher]

apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB

Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.

Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.

And I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating the fact that v0.1 had not a 1MB block limit, and thusly the insertion of the 1MB block limit was therefore a direct contradiction of your claim of immutability.

[THX 1138]

Relaying another reply:

apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB

Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.

Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.

And I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating the fact that v0.1 had not a 1MB block limit, and thusly the insertion of the 1MB block limit was therefore a direct contradiction of your claim of immutability.

Satoshi had not left the premises yet. Is there some handicap with your reading comprehension:

Upthread I quoted (actually @figmentofmyass quoted and I responded) where Satoshi stated that “v0.1” locked the major protocol decisions in stone. His point was that once he left (given that he was the creator of Bitcoin), the protocol would be immutable. When Satoshi made the decision to explicitly announce setting a hard limit of 1 MB in the client (before that any blocksize was only apparently a suggested limit, which implicitly provided a Schelling point) and then chose to disappear without addressing the pleas to raise the blocksize again, he had left us with a legacy, immutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit.

Once that explicit Schelling point was set, it can never be changed again, per the logic I provided in my prior post. Which again due to your low reading comprehension, I doubt you have assimilated. I am exasperated. I can’t continue to spoon feed grown men who apparently just want to believe whatever they want to believe. Damn the facts, so they can drool on themselves. You guys have wasted so much of my time. I deserve an apology, which will not be forthcoming. Instead I will be scorned and derided. Thanks a lot.

Have you also failed to remember that I have written numerous times that Bitcoin started off as 100% centralized and became more decentralized over time, especially when Satoshi left the building.

[fabiorem]

This mathematical FUD has grown old.

You cant hold the dam anymore. Its leaking, and its many holes cant be repaired.

[davewantsmoore]

mmutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit

It is not "immutable" with respect to blocksize.   The blocksize can be changed, but since everybody has "defaulted" to a specific limit, it requires extensive coordination..   The specific limit changes the game theory of "stale blocks" significantly.

It is naive to "blame satoshi" for this.

Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.

No.   They cannot.

They cannot effectively censor my transaction, as they neither know which transaction is mine, or what the contents of the tx is.
They cannot effectively censor a block ... as other blockfinders will catch up, and mine the tx into a competing block.

I will leave it there... but if you game out a "censorship" (or similar) scenario in more detail, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer about how it doesn't actually work in practise.

These are the things which make blockchain technology GOOD.   Your comments indicate that you either do not understand blockchain, or you are actively trying to undermine it.

The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend”

No not "all" soft works.   Just specifically segwit, due to the way it was implemented.    Again, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding.

I just did.

No you didn't.  You didn't say HOW.   You just said "it can be done", and you are incorrect.

So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep.

Indeed.   The market sets the price of all the different tokens, include any "air drops" caused by BTC forks during the coming segwit calamity.

However, why would any of them be worth anything.   1MB every 10 minutes, shared between the entire world is very very very very stupid.    P2SH is stupid.  RBF is stupid.   Nobody involved with BTC sees that (because they *did* it) .... so who's going to fix the mess?   All those people (capable of fixing and building) left in August 2017.

You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea

It was never up to Satoshi to fix it.   It is up to the miners....  they could find a larger than 1MB block if they really really want to.

None of the miners who understand (or care about) that are mining BTC any longer ..... or at least they are only mining it for it's short term profit motive.

BTC has been dead for years.

[hv_]

mmutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit

It is not "immutable" with respect to blocksize.   The blocksize can be changed, but since everybody has "defaulted" to a specific limit, it requires extensive coordination..   The specific limit changes the game theory of "stale blocks" significantly.

It is naive to "blame satoshi" for this.

Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.

No.   They cannot.

They cannot effectively censor my transaction, as they neither know which transaction is mine, or what the contents of the tx is.
They cannot effectively censor a block ... as other blockfinders will catch up, and mine the tx into a competing block.

I will leave it there... but if you game out a "censorship" (or similar) scenario in more detail, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer about how it doesn't actually work in practise.

These are the things which make blockchain technology GOOD.   Your comments indicate that you either do not understand blockchain, or you are actively trying to undermine it.

The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend”

No not "all" soft works.   Just specifically segwit, due to the way it was implemented.    Again, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding.

I just did.

No you didn't.  You didn't say HOW.   You just said "it can be done", and you are incorrect.

So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep.

Indeed.   The market sets the price of all the different tokens, include any "air drops" caused by BTC forks during the coming segwit calamity.

However, why would any of them be worth anything.   1MB every 10 minutes, shared between the entire world is very very very very stupid.    P2SH is stupid.  RBF is stupid.   Nobody involved with BTC sees that (because they *did* it) .... so who's going to fix the mess?   All those people (capable of fixing and building) left in August 2017.

You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea

It was never up to Satoshi to fix it.   It is up to the miners....  they could find a larger than 1MB block if they really really want to.

None of the miners who understand (or care about) that are mining BTC any longer ..... or at least they are only mining it for it's short term profit motive.

BTC has been dead for years.

Thx - I can Support all of this.

BTC is dead for most of its initial use cases, except ponzi shilling and Money laundry