Bitcoin Forum
July 12, 2024, 10:13:51 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: What's wrong with Gavin Andresen?  (Read 293 times)
BitcoinFX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1721


https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2020, 11:14:09 AM
Last edit: December 10, 2020, 12:11:47 PM by BitcoinFX
 #21

...snip...

His former blog shows him to speak about Bitcoin by 2009, a few days after Genesis Block:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140602022810/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2009_01_04_archive.html

But the only captures from Archive.org date from 2014. Could he put up an entire fake blog to second his story? Idk!

...snip...

Again, we know CSW backdated multiple blogposts ...

"Craig Wright - More backdated blog frauds

Few days ago I did a tweetstorm about Wayback Machine, how to debunk a 2011 Tulip Trust hint of #Faketoshi.

Here's another one, where Craig claims on Jan 10, 2009 to start with the Bitcoin network the next day."

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1220264990810300416

Moreover, ...

See: The #Faketoshi Fraud Timeline ...
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/



I have met and interacted with Gavin Andresen and he seems to me to be a decent and intelligent person. Even decent and intelligent people can be fooled, so I feel that any animosity towards him is undeserved. Note also that he is not the only person that was fooled by CSW.

My belief is that Gavin probably felt that his certification was not really important because CSW stated that he was going to show the proof to the public. Then, when CSW's public proof turned out to be bogus, Gavin's certification led to his undoing.


Quite frankly I don't believe Gavin was fooled. I believe he had an agenda and was perhaps somewhat complicate in some regard.

He did not (initially) subscribe to a Glamor Response ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response

and then seemingly took an ongoing position of deliberate ambiguity.

Gavin Andresen
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen

The "agenda" ... !?

Bitcoin XT
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XT

Gavin Andresen: I Might Take Over Lead of Bitcoin XT
- https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/gavin-andresen-i-might-take-over-lead-of-bitcoin-xt-1448486445

Where is Gavin Andresen? The Quiet Exile of Bitcoin’s Former Face
- https://www.coindesk.com/where-is-gavin-andresen-the-quiet-exile-of-bitcoins-former-face

...

...snip...

The order of things I would want satoshi to sign to 'prove' identity would be ...

1. The PGP Key.
2. The Genesis Block and/or block 1,2 etc.,
3. The block with the outgoing transaction to Hal Finney.
4. Then Login to either ning / P2P foundation account, forum account login and sourceforge login.
5. Old communications and being able to recall 'private' conversations etc.,

...snip...

...

"Quite possibly one of the worst #Faketoshi enabler's and supporters thus far, and in no particular order ...

1. Gavin "Bell" Andresen
2. Jon Matonis
3. Ian Grigg
4. George Gilder
5. Calvin Ayre "

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_XBT/status/1320412165036216320

...

Hostile takeover bid failed ... [citation's needed] !?

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

...snip...

...

*Satire*
lady gaga - poker face (slowed) [ russian roulette is not the same without a gun ]
- https://youtu.be/IsdWl0CwS2g

"Bitcoin OG" 1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp | Bitcoin logo™ Enforcer? | Bitcoin is BTC | CSW is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto | I Mine BTC, LTC, ZEC, XMR and GAP | BTC on Tor addnodes Project | Media enquiries : Wu Ming | Enjoy The Money Machine | "You cannot compete with Open Source" and "Cryptography != Banana" | BSV and BCH are COUNTERFEIT.
SirArthur
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 43


View Profile
December 10, 2020, 01:30:28 PM
 #22

@BitcoinFX

I know that now. Sorry for just overlooked the Wired article.

In a way, I didn't dig deep because, if I know who Satoshi is, the only thing I would give him was a hug (well, with Covid around maybe a virtual hug).
 From my PoV, and knowing what happened to Liberty Dollar creator, if he wants to remain anonymous, it's his right. I will not try to find who he is.
Obviously will not validate any idiot that washes up claiming to be him, an idiot that doesn't even know how to use an earlier, known to be owned by Satoshi, private key to sign something.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!