Satoshi - Sirius emails 2009-2011

[apogio]

Not sure about everyone else, but I'd rather this topic didn't degenerate into another inane "who is satoshi?" thread.  We've got hundreds of those already.  I'd politely ask if everyone kept the focus to the historical interest aspect (and definitely don't engage with deranged shitgibbon LeezHamilton, because that's a sure-fire way to ruin a topic rapidly).  Faketoshi does not belong in this thread.  Talk about him elsewhere, please.

You are right. We shouldn't have derailed the thread like that.

The main purpose of the topic, for me, apart from providing information about satoshi's ideas, is to help us realise whether Bitcoin has severely diverted from the original version.

To this extent, I am looking forward to hearing everyone's opinion.

[1714668681]

1714668681

[1714668681]

1714668681

[1714668681]

1714668681

[thecodebear]

Also, I'd appreciate your thoughts on https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-3, specifically his response to a question about scaling.

That's also something we've had an awful lot of topics about, heh.  Maybe keep this discussion brief as well.

Ultimately, if Bitcoin had retained the "1 CPU = 1 Vote" concept Satoshi had, scaling would be a far simpler question.  The idea was simple.  You were either a miner or an SPV user.  And there was nothing in between.  Scaling would be simple, as miners would get paid more as blocks became larger, so it wouldn't adversely impact their costs of running a mining node.  However, mining became centralised at a rate far quicker than Satoshi had anticipated.  As such, the need for non-mining nodes became essential to keep a reasonable degree of decentralisation.  Notice how there's no mention in the whitepaper of non-miners relaying transactions or enforcing consensus rules.  They were never part of the design, but we now rely heavily upon them.  It's because of these nodes that scaling is a far more nuanced and delicate matter.  Unlike miners, there's no financial reward for running a non-mining node, but they do help to secure the network.  Ergo, making it more increasingly more costly to run something that earns no rewards is a difficult ask.

Oh that's very interesting. I never knew that. I thought non-mining nodes were always part of Bitcoin. Thanks for teaching me something new today DooMAD

[thecodebear]

Switching topics back to the emails, I've been reading them quite carefully (and therefore slowly) for a better understanding. What do the esteemed ladies and gentlemen think about https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-19, where Satoshi's email confirms that Bitcoin was meant to be a digital cash, not an investment tool, as outlined in the Bitcoin white paper title?

The transition of bitcoin from a digital cash concept to an investment tool is a natural evolution driven by several factors that have unfolded since its inception. While SN initially designed Bitcoin with the vision of it being a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, its use and perception have shifted over time.

Fiat-currency uncertainties, mainstream news SoV narratives, and speculative interests have all shaped bitcoin's current image.

While the original intention of Bitcoin may have been as a digital cash system, its journey through a decade of development, market dynamics, and changing perceptions has led to its predominant role as an investment tool.

Any really good "hard" money like Bitcoin is going to be useful for both of money's main two uses: transactions and storing value. Considering the fact that being useful for transactions is the final phase of adoption (because you literally can't transact on a mass scale until there is a large enough mass of people willing to be paid with the currency), it makes perfect sense that in these still early days of Bitcoin its main use is as an investment/store of value. This is very straightforward.

Payments on any sort of a large scale don't come until much later in the adoption of Bitcoin (or any currency growing organically from the ground up). There has been no transition from Bitcoin's original idea to a different idea. Bitcoin is simply following a natural growth cycle where one part of money's use case comes before the second major use case.

The natural growth cycle is:
1. investment / store of value
2. payments AND investment / store of value

We are simply still fairly early in the first phase. Of course the second phase is happening at the same time but it takes much more mature growth to achieve so it's use case growth naturally lags far beyond the first phase. So if Bitcoin is say 10% into phase 1 it's only maybe 0.1% into phase 2. And it's not until Phase 1 gets to a very mature point that Phase 2 can really start to take off as Bitcoin ownership and acceptance reaches a critical mass allowing people to start readily paying for things with it.

Satoshi's idea of Bitcoin being p2p cash is still very much alive, it just naturally happens to be the use case, or the part of the ecosystem, that takes the longest to develop.

[cr1776]

Switching topics back to the emails, I've been reading them quite carefully (and therefore slowly) for a better understanding. What do the esteemed ladies and gentlemen think about https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-19, where Satoshi's email confirms that Bitcoin was meant to be a digital cash, not an investment tool, as outlined in the Bitcoin white paper title?

The transition of bitcoin from a digital cash concept to an investment tool is a natural evolution driven by several factors that have unfolded since its inception. While SN initially designed Bitcoin with the vision of it being a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, its use and perception have shifted over time.

Fiat-currency uncertainties, mainstream news SoV narratives, and speculative interests have all shaped bitcoin's current image.

While the original intention of Bitcoin may have been as a digital cash system, its journey through a decade of development, market dynamics, and changing perceptions has led to its predominant role as an investment tool.

It is a transition.  Right now it is more of an investment with other use cases included.  Once bitcoin reaches an equilibrium with fiat pricing then it will be much easier to use as digital cash.  That is another few orders of magnitude away and at that point (if not before) one hopes that you don't need to "get out" of bitcoin and can just remain in without needing gatekeepers to convert.

[DooMAD]

Also, I'd appreciate your thoughts on https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-3, specifically his response to a question about scaling.

That's also something we've had an awful lot of topics about, heh.  Maybe keep this discussion brief as well.

Ultimately, if Bitcoin had retained the "1 CPU = 1 Vote" concept Satoshi had, scaling would be a far simpler question.  The idea was simple.  You were either a miner or an SPV user.  And there was nothing in between.  Scaling would be simple, as miners would get paid more as blocks became larger, so it wouldn't adversely impact their costs of running a mining node.  However, mining became centralised at a rate far quicker than Satoshi had anticipated.  As such, the need for non-mining nodes became essential to keep a reasonable degree of decentralisation.  Notice how there's no mention in the whitepaper of non-miners relaying transactions or enforcing consensus rules.  They were never part of the design, but we now rely heavily upon them.  It's because of these nodes that scaling is a far more nuanced and delicate matter.  Unlike miners, there's no financial reward for running a non-mining node, but they do help to secure the network.  Ergo, making it more increasingly more costly to run something that earns no rewards is a difficult ask.

Oh that's very interesting. I never knew that. I thought non-mining nodes were always part of Bitcoin. Thanks for teaching me something new today DooMAD

Perhaps my post was a little absolutist and I'm giving the wrong impression.  I was speaking conceptually.  There was certainly an option to run a client without mining.  In practice, there probably would have been a small number of users with outdated CPUs who may not have benefited much from clicking the 'Generate Coins' button.  And the code to do SPV didn't exist at the time the network first launched.  So non-mining nodes have always been a part of Bitcoin, but weren't initially an integral part of the concept.  


From 2010:

1) Do i need to download whole network transactions log to be able to validate received coins?

Theoretically, no, but the code to do lightweight validation hasn't been written.

I'll amend my prior post to try to clarify things.

[MoneroModel]

Notice how there's no mention in the whitepaper of non-miners relaying transactions or enforcing consensus rules.  They were never part of the design, but we now rely heavily upon them.  It's because of these nodes that scaling is a far more nuanced and delicate matter.  Unlike miners, there's no financial reward for running a non-mining node, but they do help to secure the network.  Ergo, making it more increasingly more costly to run something that earns no rewards is a difficult ask.

As someone who runs nodes, relays, bridges, and mailboxes for some projects, I think I can offer a personal perspective on the issue of rewards. For myself and several friends who share in these efforts, running a node transcends any monetary gain. It bestows a profound sense of expanding freedom and liberation in the world—a feeling so potent and invaluable, akin to love (which no amount of money can buy!). This is the essence of increasing total freedom: a united stand against the limitations enforced by governments globally. This feeling is priceless and motivates me to not only forego potential earnings but also to invest my own resources - I buy hardware and allocate both funds and time—all of which hold financial value—to support these projects. From my personal viewpoint, the 'reward problem' arises only when a project shifts from being a platform for the dissenting voices of the people, from a collective resistance to malevolence, to becoming a vehicle for wealth accumulation for 'HODLers' and institutions. After all, no one wants to labor for free while watching the 'rich get richer.' If it's no longer about a selfless collective standing against tyranny, injustice and state, it becomes a service—and services require compensation. Practically speaking, Bitcoin needs to consider implementing a financial reward mechanism for those operating non-mining nodes in the long term.
One cannot help but ponder why preemptive measures were not taken to mitigate the centralization of mining power, such as introducing deterrents to ASICs, similar to the RandomX algorithm?

[nullama]

~snip~
As someone who runs nodes, relays, bridges, and mailboxes for some projects, I think I can offer a personal perspective on the issue of rewards. For myself and several friends who share in these efforts, running a node transcends any monetary gain. It bestows a profound sense of expanding freedom and liberation in the world—a feeling so potent and invaluable, akin to love (which no amount of money can buy!). This is the essence of increasing total freedom: a united stand against the limitations enforced by governments globally. This feeling is priceless and motivates me to not only forego potential earnings but also to invest my own resources - I buy hardware and allocate both funds and time—all of which hold financial value—to support these projects. From my personal viewpoint, the 'reward problem' arises only when a project shifts from being a platform for the dissenting voices of the people, from a collective resistance to malevolence, to becoming a vehicle for wealth accumulation for 'HODLers' and institutions. After all, no one wants to labor for free while watching the 'rich get richer.' If it's no longer about a selfless collective standing against tyranny, injustice and state, it becomes a service—and services require compensation. Practically speaking, Bitcoin needs to consider implementing a financial reward mechanism for those operating non-mining nodes in the long term.
One cannot help but ponder why preemptive measures were not taken to mitigate the centralization of mining power, such as introducing deterrents to ASICs, similar to the RandomX algorithm?

Yeah, I agree with this.

Visa for example has a relatively similar amount of "nodes", and it makes sense for them to run them because they get paid through their fees.

In Bitcoin, the fees go completely to the miners.

In the whitepaper the idea was that the miner and the node where the same machine, so probably this issue wasn't really important back then. But now, miners are a completely different industry, and they are the ones making all the money.

Still there are dozens of thousands of Bitcoin nodes that are running securing the network, without getting any financial incentive.

It reminds me of landmark open source projects like SSH for example, which are used by millions of people but maintained by a handful of people for free in their spare time.

Open source is probably one of the best inventions in human kind, and yet it pays almost zero to the people developing it. Instead, useless and bloated software based on open source gets millions of dollars.

[AndrewWeb]

Satoshi - Sirius emails 2009-2011
https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/

Interesting

Email #211 19 Jul 2010 "Donations in Bitcoin are helpful and can be sent to 14EXchS9j3AAfim6mL4jtw6VWMosSUiG5U"

The one and only donation they ever received at this address in Apr 2018. Was 10000 Satoshi from the man who purchased two Papa Johns pizza's using 10000 Bitcoin in May 2010

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.msg1195#msg1195

BTW: Donations to me 1LotuszyDXjZYhcNAVhPJYvWMAbfSZdq68

[nullama]

~snip~
Interesting

Email #211 19 Jul 2010 "Donations in Bitcoin are helpful and can be sent to 14EXchS9j3AAfim6mL4jtw6VWMosSUiG5U"

The one and only donation they ever received at this address in Apr 2018. Was 10000 Satoshi from the man who purchased two Papa Johns pizza's using 10000 Bitcoin in May 2010

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.msg1195#msg1195

BTW: Donations to me 1LotuszyDXjZYhcNAVhPJYvWMAbfSZdq68

That man who bought the two pizzas also helped making the mac port, and open sourced the first GPU miner...

He is of course only remembered for buying pizzas with Bitcoin only.

[AndrewWeb]

~snip~
Interesting

Email #211 19 Jul 2010 "Donations in Bitcoin are helpful and can be sent to 14EXchS9j3AAfim6mL4jtw6VWMosSUiG5U"

The one and only donation they ever received at this address in Apr 2018. Was 10000 Satoshi from the man who purchased two Papa Johns pizza's using 10000 Bitcoin in May 2010

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.msg1195#msg1195

BTW: Donations to me 1LotuszyDXjZYhcNAVhPJYvWMAbfSZdq68

That man who bought the two pizzas also helped making the mac port, and open sourced the first GPU miner...

He is of course only remembered for buying pizzas with Bitcoin only.

Maybe the 10000 Satoshi donation in Apr 2018 was meant to be a remainder of that to ?

[apogio]

That man who bought the two pizzas also helped making the mac port, and open sourced the first GPU miner...

He is of course only remembered for buying pizzas with Bitcoin only.

I was unaware of that, thanks for pointing out. It's unfortunate, but it's also normal. I mean, the story with pizzas seems very intriguing even for someone with zero knowledge in Bitcoin. Unfortunately the open source work he has done is only appreciated by a few people... Thats life...

[Learn Bitcoin]

Suppose the real Satoshi appear in the Court and provide his evidence that Craig is fraud who is impersonating his Japanese pseudonym for defrauding investors the what Craig wright will do ? 
or If Craig Wright decides to contact the real Satoshi and repent his sin and convince real Satoshi to lend him a signed message from Genesis Block then how COPA is going prove that Craigs Wright is wrong ?

The truth is COPA and Craig are mutually staging this case to a secret purpose which the real Satoshi knows the truth, but if Craig really repent and request the real Satoshi, he might forgive Craig and let him play the Bitcoin drama for more few years.

Well, your post made me angry!
Are you stupid? Even if you are stupid, a real satoshi is not. There is no way to contact the real Satoshi. If it was possible to contact the real Satoshi, there are a lot of people who contacted Satoshi before, they would have been able to contact him. Think about Sirius, theymos, and others who had a direct connection with satoshi before he left the forum and all other platforms.

Why do you think that real Satoshi will give CSW his genesis block's address private keys or a signed message? Satoshi is NOT a stupid. People who can assume these things are pure STUPID.

[blckhawk]

I am surprised that someone has not thought to use readily available AI apps like EmmaIdentity (or something newer), to compared Satoshi's large amount of emails to other early Bitcoin advocates discussions to find out Satoshi's identity. I would think this would now be quite simple and fast to do.

That AI will give you a false positive that will make the hunt much more difficult because there's more people that's going to get involved that aren't even remotely linked or is even Satoshi plus I don't think that pattern recognition for writing style is difficult to be called accurate, think about this, the story Bourbon Kid doesn't have any author and even if you investigate the writing style, you're probably going to do an impossible because there's going to be a lot of comparison, it's the same with email comparison. If we never perfected the identification of a person through their writing style then how do you think would an AI be able to do that if there's no frame of reference? And that AI can't be scouring all the email out there because that's invasion of privacy to the most glorious fashion.

[Bananington]

Not sure about everyone else, but I'd rather this topic didn't degenerate into another inane "who is satoshi?" thread.  We've got hundreds of those already.  I'd politely ask if everyone kept the focus to the historical interest aspect (and definitely don't engage with deranged shitgibbon LeezHamilton, because that's a sure-fire way to ruin a topic rapidly).  Faketoshi does not belong in this thread.  Talk about him elsewhere, please.

You are right. We shouldn't have derailed the thread like that.

The main purpose of the topic, for me, apart from providing information about satoshi's ideas, is to help us realise whether Bitcoin has severely diverted from the original version.

To this extent, I am looking forward to hearing everyone's opinion.

On the contrary, although i don't know if am right, but I think the emails since 2009 till 2011 pointing to the existence of Satoshi is brought about by the case between COPA vs Dr. Wright.  The case has been dragging on with Dr wright bringing forged documents as evidence to support his claims of being Satoshi, the brains behind the Bitcoin idea and implementation.
One is to expect several of such real or unreal evidences to surface so that this man claiming  to be the real Satoshi and has the blue print or white paper to the whole Bitcoin idea would be shamed and made to pay good fine for claiming to be something he is not.

[LeezHamilton]

I think now some one should ask Marti Malmi and Adam Back to provide prove of evidences that Satoshi Nakamoto actually wrote and email to them. As any one can construct and email like that and claims that Satoshi Nakamoto wrote this email to them. They must provide authentic proofs - of - evidences with that claims. I mean electronic evidences with IP addresses.

Other wise I myself or some one else can debunk those claims and establish a false narratives even some of those emails are genuine.  Any body can hacked and hijacked Satoshi's Email Account and send emails to Adam Back and Marti Malmi as Satoshi Nakamoto. Therefore, what is the truth ?  Did Craig Wright send those email to them ?  Craig Wright always can use a double standard to claim saying, Yes he wrote those emails, or he can say no he dib not send those email to them. Its mean either way he can claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

but as far as the truth is, Craig just a fraud or thief. If he proof that he has sent those emails to them then it is time for the expert to authenticate the Satoshi's Email Account of satoshin@gmx.com and satoshi@vistomail.com and Satoshi@annonymousspeech.com.

Who registered those email addresses ?  it is Craig Wright or Some none else ? There is meta data and Satoshi's IP address of those email accounts as well as those emails.

You cannot just claim to receive special message from God, and cannot tell or bring any proof that God exist. You might received messages from Satan the Devil who us impersonating the  pseudonym of God.  This is what the Christian Priests blames regarding Prophet Muhammad.

Some say Jesus was crucified and some others say some one else was causticized on behalf of Jesus. What is the truth ?
The truth is Jesus was crucified on ground of terrorism by the  by the Roman Governor Pilot but Jesus did not die on the cross but was unconscious and survived and came out of the tomb and are fish and migrated bac to his fathers Kingdom in Paradise Kashmir with 360 0f his followers.

In the case of bitcoin and Satoshi Nakamoto, The governments agents hijacked Bitcoin and Blockchain from Satoshi Nakamoto, and few of those agents impersonating now to scam people because Bitcoin and Blockchain is the proven tract record of Satoshi Nakamoto that Central banks have been debasing our money for centuries. 

So it is time for a financial service reformation. The fiat financial elites d not like it because Bitcoin has challenged their fiat scamming in the financial service industry.  Either you are are one of those fiat financial elite's agent or a genuine Bitcoin adopter,  the truth will be unfolded if whether you are a genuine disciple of Satoshi Nakamoto ?  Satoshi  Nakamoto knows his sheep, and he does not milk his sheep or send to the Baith'Laham which is the House of the butchers.

Just leave Satoshi alone.




   

 

[B1-66ER]

I am learning about ‘plausible deniability’ as it appears Satoshi didn’t sign those emails… did he?

[cUfZz8]

Switching topics back to the emails, I've been reading them quite carefully (and therefore slowly) for a better understanding. What do the esteemed ladies and gentlemen think about https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-19, where Satoshi's email confirms that Bitcoin was meant to be a digital cash, not an investment tool, as outlined in the Bitcoin white paper title?

The transition of bitcoin from a digital cash concept to an investment tool is a natural evolution driven by several factors that have unfolded since its inception. While SN initially designed Bitcoin with the vision of it being a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, its use and perception have shifted over time.

Fiat-currency uncertainties, mainstream news SoV narratives, and speculative interests have all shaped bitcoin's current image.

While the original intention of Bitcoin may have been as a digital cash system, its journey through a decade of development, market dynamics, and changing perceptions has led to its predominant role as an investment tool.

It is a transition.  Right now it is more of an investment with other use cases included.  Once bitcoin reaches an equilibrium with fiat pricing then it will be much easier to use as digital cash.  That is another few orders of magnitude away and at that point (if not before) one hopes that you don't need to "get out" of bitcoin and can just remain in without needing gatekeepers to convert.

I'm pretty good with writing at times yet not great with coding.

If I could be a coder that would had been a computer scientist's dream. Satoshi Nakamoto (the mastermind) on the other hand succeeded. With cryptography and created the alpha blockchain, which is yet to transition from one state to the final to become the ultimate omega

I am surprised that someone has not thought to use readily available AI apps like EmmaIdentity (or something newer), to compared Satoshi's large amount of emails to other early Bitcoin advocates discussions to find out Satoshi's identity. I would think this would now be quite simple and fast to do.

That AI will give you a false positive that will make the hunt much more difficult because there's more people that's going to get involved that aren't even remotely linked or is even Satoshi plus I don't think that pattern recognition for writing style is difficult to be called accurate, think about this, the story Bourbon Kid doesn't have any author and even if you investigate the writing style, you're probably going to do an impossible because there's going to be a lot of comparison, it's the same with email comparison. If we never perfected the identification of a person through their writing style then how do you think would an AI be able to do that if there's no frame of reference? And that AI can't be scouring all the email out there because that's invasion of privacy to the most glorious fashion.

cUfZz8: "sorry to be a disappointment. Iam not, an AI. IAM HI".

That man who bought the two pizzas also helped making the mac port, and open sourced the first GPU miner...

He is of course only remembered for buying pizzas with Bitcoin only.

I was unaware of that, thanks for pointing out. It's unfortunate, but it's also normal. I mean, the story with pizzas seems very intriguing even for someone with zero knowledge in Bitcoin. Unfortunately the open source work he has done is only appreciated by a few people... Thats life...

Few of slices to go around. For Satoshi and I. Just the two

~snip~
As someone who runs nodes, relays, bridges, and mailboxes for some projects, I think I can offer a personal perspective on the issue of rewards. For myself and several friends who share in these efforts, running a node transcends any monetary gain. It bestows a profound sense of expanding freedom and liberation in the world—a feeling so potent and invaluable, akin to love (which no amount of money can buy!). This is the essence of increasing total freedom: a united stand against the limitations enforced by governments globally. This feeling is priceless and motivates me to not only forego potential earnings but also to invest my own resources - I buy hardware and allocate both funds and time—all of which hold financial value—to support these projects. From my personal viewpoint, the 'reward problem' arises only when a project shifts from being a platform for the dissenting voices of the people, from a collective resistance to malevolence, to becoming a vehicle for wealth accumulation for 'HODLers' and institutions. After all, no one wants to labor for free while watching the 'rich get richer.' If it's no longer about a selfless collective standing against tyranny, injustice and state, it becomes a service—and services require compensation. Practically speaking, Bitcoin needs to consider implementing a financial reward mechanism for those operating non-mining nodes in the long term.
One cannot help but ponder why preemptive measures were not taken to mitigate the centralization of mining power, such as introducing deterrents to ASICs, similar to the RandomX algorithm?

Yeah, I agree with this.

Visa for example has a relatively similar amount of "nodes", and it makes sense for them to run them because they get paid through their fees.

In Bitcoin, the fees go completely to the miners.

In the whitepaper the idea was that the miner and the node where the same machine, so probably this issue wasn't really important back then. But now, miners are a completely different industry, and they are the ones making all the money.

Still there are dozens of thousands of Bitcoin nodes that are running securing the network, without getting any financial incentive.

It reminds me of landmark open source projects like SSH for example, which are used by millions of people but maintained by a handful of people for free in their spare time.

Open source is probably one of the best inventions in human kind, and yet it pays almost zero to the people developing it. Instead, useless and bloated software based on open source gets millions of dollars.

A node's tool is a miner

[nutildah]

Funny how these types of threads bring the loonies out of the woodwork.

Amazing how BSVers can see stuff like this and continue their belief in Faketoshi unphased:

https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1762570223083827577

COPA Vs CSW Trial - New evidence published

CSW submitted to the court a document called Maths.doc. It is dated December 2008. This was one of Wright's primary reliance documents supporting his claim to be Satosh. An extract of the document is shown below, which contains a reference to Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

Bitcoin Cash was not created until 2017

[cUfZz8]

Switching topics back to the emails, I've been reading them quite carefully (and therefore slowly) for a better understanding. What do the esteemed ladies and gentlemen think about https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-19, where Satoshi's email confirms that Bitcoin was meant to be a digital cash, not an investment tool, as outlined in the Bitcoin white paper title?

The transition of bitcoin from a digital cash concept to an investment tool is a natural evolution driven by several factors that have unfolded since its inception. While SN initially designed Bitcoin with the vision of it being a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, its use and perception have shifted over time.

Fiat-currency uncertainties, mainstream news SoV narratives, and speculative interests have all shaped bitcoin's current image.

While the original intention of Bitcoin may have been as a digital cash system, its journey through a decade of development, market dynamics, and changing perceptions has led to its predominant role as an investment tool.

Any really good "hard" money like Bitcoin is going to be useful for both of money's main two uses: transactions and storing value. Considering the fact that being useful for transactions is the final phase of adoption (because you literally can't transact on a mass scale until there is a large enough mass of people willing to be paid with the currency), it makes perfect sense that in these still early days of Bitcoin its main use is as an investment/store of value. This is very straightforward.

Payments on any sort of a large scale don't come until much later in the adoption of Bitcoin (or any currency growing organically from the ground up). There has been no transition from Bitcoin's original idea to a different idea. Bitcoin is simply following a natural growth cycle where one part of money's use case comes before the second major use case.

The natural growth cycle is:
1. investment / store of value
2. payments AND investment / store of value

We are simply still fairly early in the first phase. Of course the second phase is happening at the same time but it takes much more mature growth to achieve so it's use case growth naturally lags far beyond the first phase. So if Bitcoin is say 10% into phase 1 it's only maybe 0.1% into phase 2. And it's not until Phase 1 gets to a very mature point that Phase 2 can really start to take off as Bitcoin ownership and acceptance reaches a critical mass allowing people to start readily paying for things with it.

Satoshi's idea of Bitcoin being p2p cash is still very much alive, it just naturally happens to be the use case, or the part of the ecosystem, that takes the longest to develop.

We have dynamic blocks for processing payments at relatively good speeds for a utxo model called Blockchain. And there we also have the GhostDAG. Combination of the two??

[nullama]

I am learning about ‘plausible deniability’ as it appears Satoshi didn’t sign those emails… did he?

You are right.

But an email usually leaves a digital footprint in multiple servers.

Once you send something, it is copied in multiple places at different organizations.

It is not the same as for example a post on a single website.

But yeah, cryptographic proof is stronger than an email.