Andrew_Quentin

Wow, this place has completely transformed then? More like pleb news nowadays I guess rather than hacker news. Shame.

Everyone is an outlier to an 'average.'

And it creates monopolies, perfect for gulag control of the people.

How does google know they hit back within three seconds? Oh yeah, monopoly. Break them up.

They decide by the Wired guys having a coffee with the Google guys or a chat in some party.

Google is people afterall. Corrupt as fuck. That's why plenty call it gulag.

Are you a bot? Where do you find those stupid words? No wonder you're attracted to useless positions for status.

I'm saying there are laws against foreign interference in domestic politics for obvious reasons, so if some foreign government for example - which can openly buy Twitter stocks as there is no legal restriction and can do so either directly or like with Reddit indirectly by getting Tencent to buy it off - is moderating the speech of the president, then there's a big problem.

Twitter is not a private company, it's a publicly tradable company that can technically even fully be owned by the Chinese government itself through perfectly legally buying their shares on the open market.

You don't see a problem here?

Ah, so that's why Google has added site speed to their ranking factors? Another brick to hit them with then in the anti-trust lawsuits.

The interface, as in the website, is often a centralized point. Admins can remove stuff from there which easily deals with CP reflecting to a large extent the current situation - sending CP stuff to some fringe.

In more grey areas, although admins can remove, say, free speech pictures, the picture remains there, with anyone free to create a new interface allowing the picture to be easily accessed. So it's a bit similiar to the internet where anyone can - or maybe now, could - create a new site and upload the info.

You can then add more user level jury aspects on top, but I doubt anyone wants to face that sort of stuff and moderate it if the network was to gain scale. If we go back to the centralized website though, it becomes a bit interesting.

Take Milo's banning example - just because it is the most recent and comes to mind. We have the twitter website with Milo banned. Under this scheme, we can have a twitter classic with Milo not banned. Both of them have the same network effect, the same users etc, they identical in all ways, but in one Milo is banned in the other Milo isn't with the only other difference being that they have different domain names.

When we all agree something is abhorrent, everyone uses the non cp network through the centralized website interface, while some go to... like now we have internet and tor, when something is in a bit of a grey area, however, there is an added benefit.

Say, for example, reddit took some action against everyone's opinion. The current option is for everyone to move to a new site. That's of course a bit difficult as it requires a change of habit and changing habits can be stupendously extremely hard.

With this, or more generally, with a blockchain based approach, you don't ask anyone to shift at all. There is no shifting. All users remain, the entire network effect is still there. There are no bootstrapping questions etc. No starting back from zero. All there is, is typing a new domain, far, far easier than persuading everyone to start a new town in a ghost desert place.

So, it is obviously not a utopia, but, it is a bit of an improvement. The whole thing is very much at a cable switching for phone calls stage though, so, everyone is sort of considering this matters.

This thing is so conceptually new, just thought to ask what people here, in the start-up, VC world, think it can best move forward.

So Wright is Hal Finney? Or, who else mined bitcoins seven or eight hours after it went live?

Problem is that if it was centralized it may be shut down. Moreover, the central entity would have to issue money and comply with aml etc and register accounts, thus turning it into a bank.

Some are working on a consensus system called proof of stake which does not use energy. It is not clear whether it will be fully secure, etc., but if you read about this stuff decades ago you might want to google and research primarily Bitcoin and Ethereum.

You'd require some (substantial) investment, but you can always just mine them. Tunisia should have some fairly cheap electricity. Not sure how you can get the Asics there though. Maybe contact one of the sellers directly. They'll probably accept btc.

That sounds like a lot of conspiracy theory with zero evidence. Mind producing some actual evidence of brigading, sock puppeting, etc, preferably before theymos started banning everyone and was downvoted to -1,000 by the bitcoin community, not by whatever your paranoid head imagines.

Moreover, didn't theymos say he would ban coinbase from r/bitcoin. I suppose coinbases is a sockpuppet too right and maybe they out to destroy bitcoin because it isn't bitcoin that gives them their business.

All we get from small blockers is conspiracies and conspiracies, all the while you engage in ddosing, banning, censorship, changing of sorting orders, secret honk kong meetings, backroom deals with miners and on and on.

There is an attack going on and that is the insanity of the small blockers - a tiny minority of only 10% - crippling bitcoin by keeping network capacity limited, creating a huge backlog, unreliable transactions, and now we on HN discussing it.

Congrats - nutheads.

Your post contains a number of allegations with no proof whatever. Can you provide evidence of any "fake" campaign, of "sockpuppets" of "voting bots".

I mean, your post is psyop, otherwise called a "mind fuck", just a number of statements with zero evidence to discredit valid opinions by not in any way engaging them.

While you of course use outright censorship, banning, ddosing of nodes, secret conferences, and other dark black hat social engineering techniques you should be ashamed of.

I don't think the bitcoin development community acknowledges bitcoin can not scale to Visa levels. Perhaps one of them has a crystal ball, but I do not think anyone can say how far bitcoin scales as technology improves.

I mean bill gates said 64kb is enough for everyone, now some bitcoin developers are saying 1mb is enough for everyone. History proved Bill Gates wrong. I'm sure it will prove whoever wishes to speculate as if they have a crystal ball wrong too.

To be fair, 8mb and 8mb doubling every two years are two very different things. I understand why 8mb with doubling was offered, but I also understand why the chinese miners expressed their concerns, concerns which you were unwilling to address.

I supported BIP101, but your unwillingness to compromise - they offered 4mb doubling every 4 years I believe - played a great part in it's eventual failure.

The situation now is very much different with almost 100% of miners saying they will support 2mb and some 50% already supporting bitcoin classic with more to come.

So, I share your concerns, but unfortunately mistakes were made, some of them grave mistakes, mistakes from which we learned, and are thus now well placed to move forward.

Welcome to HN

If you knew anything about Bitcoin Unlimited I am sure you would have come across its most fundamental aspect - moving the blocksize limited from the hardcoded centralised protocol layer to the transport or messaging layer thus allowing each node operator to choose the limit in a decentralised fashion so creating an emergent consensus.

In regards to your speculative economics, as I am sure you are aware, storage/bandwith/processing/validation and mining has costs. No one would therefore mine a transaction for free in 20 years because if they do so they would soon go bankrupt.

Bitcoin's design has an inbuilt long term solution. Reward miners early on - grow adoption - increase transactions to a "very large number" - charge pennies out of millions of transactions - profit.

Finally, LN may be secure for microtransactions. It is in no way secure for decent transactions. There are millions of ways it can be hacked even now that it only exists in speculative heads. Once it becomes hardcode implemented I am sure attack vectors will only increase much further.

Obviously this is fake. I can't imagine satoshi saying "we are all satoshi" - so much cringe...

Plus, we know that the gmx account was hacked and it seems it was hacked through a simple guess of his birthday. As such, it seems reasonable to suggest that satoshi wanted that (gmx) email to be hacked since it had such a weak password. If that is the case I think we can assume that the vistomail is probably hacked too for the same reasons satoshi would have wanted the gmx email to be hacked.

Plus, I think it is now sort of obvious that Craig is not satoshi. There is speculations that this guy does not even have a supercomputer:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3w5ro9/wright_not...

As such it may be the case that he conned the ATO out of a 45 million tax "rebate" and then tried to claim he is satoshi to perhaps keep the scam going or make it more credible (although his silence and even his apparent deletion of his online presence is somewhat puzzling.)

Moreover, the "trust fund" smoking gun document reads like one of those phishing emails you get - a puzzling misstated amount, an unended sentence, peculiar "against my advice" comments and looks overall amateurish. Furthermore, people have been trying to find peer reviewed journals from this guy (he claims he has 100) with no success so there is much doubt of his claims he has a PHD, well two PHDs and a dozen or more Masters.

Not to mention his seemingly inability to spell.

If, thus, it is somewhat obvious that this guy is not satoshi, I don't see why the real satoshi would find it necessary to make the somewhat cringy comment above which sounds like a "commoner". Same goes for the "I am not Dorian". Neither is in anyway evidence or in anyway proves anything and in both cases it is/was obvious the person was not satoshi so the comment was unnecessary.

Therefore, I think these accounts have simply been hacked and the real satoshi never made such comments in either case.

And you have a history of jumping the gun in declaring evidence as false or not true which likewise likely caused/causes harm.

Such as your public and forceful "rebuking", in an authoritarian manner, of the then revelations, with evidence, that gox had 200k btc, which latter of course was shown to be true and showed that you were in no way rebuking anything, but abusing your position.

One would think you would have learned and keep your mouth until the dust is settled and you are in a better position to judge, but it seems that you like far too much making authoritarian, seemingly conclusive when not warranted, proclamations instead.

That is not to say, of course, that this guy may not be satoshi, but I'd take care hours after the announcement especially if I was in your position.

Sorry, the text should have been in quotes. As r/bitcoin remains censored I thought perhaps you hackers would like to learn of the twist and turn that some people have chosen to take in regards to bitcoin.

Yet you and some of your other blockstream colleagues are cheering on the censorship in r/bitcoin.

One side - your side specifically maaku and that of your employer blockstream - loses complete legitimacy when they start censoring posts and spoofing Satoshi's email address.

Lmao. That looks as far away from something Satoshi would say, note how all the points of the "block minimalists" are mentioned, as night and day.

And Satoshi being reasonably smart would know that he needs some sort of evidence to not be called fake after years of not participating. I am sure too he knows how to sign one of his bitcoin addresses. Moreover, his e-mail account was hacked once, it was a different email address but it seems clear that he seems to have wanted those e-mail addresses to become breached at some point. And vistomail - the e-mail provider is no longer even operational.

Two developers, nullc and pieter are against increasing the blocksize at a reasonable rate. Gavin, Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn wish to increase it by early next year. Following some three months of debate, an agreement could not be reached, so Gavin and Mike are forking Bitcoin to the new Bitcoin XT. The vast majority of users, businesses and miners support Gavin and his bigger blocks, but blockstream, a relativley new for profit company which employs nullc aka Gregory Maxwell and Pieter as well as some other bitcoin devs and is developind lightning and sidechains which they offer as an alternative to increasing the blocksize has managed to stall this process, thus leading to a fork.

r/bitcoin is being censored right now (quite ironic), so thought maybe you hackers can have a discussion about the upcoming bitcoin fork in regards to the blocksize. Some suggest that bitcoin blocks should remain at 1mb, which currently covers around 200k transactions, a limit that is close to being reached. The vast majority seem to want an increase on this capacity for pretty much obvious reasons. However, some relatively newcomer bitcoin developers argue that increasing it will affect decentralisation, and everyone should use a hubs and spoke system instead. Others argue that as the number of users increases, the number of the blockchain applications increase, the number of nodes and miners increases, thus decentralisation increases. In regards to lightning it is still vapourwear, it requires hot wallets - something which has caused many problems - the hubs are likely to be centralised - and fundamentally users should have a choice. So yeah looks like bitcoin will fork.

For people who are not familiar with the whole blocksize debate which has been raging in the bitcoin community for around three months now, even leading to outright censorship by theymos, perhaps asked to do so by "someone", the author of the post is highly biased and the article is biased too.

It refers for example to an attack by Ghash, and then dismisses their explanation that it was an employee without providing much evidence and without pointing that his dismissal of their explanation was simply speculation. Moreover, it suggests that Ghash gained 50% of hashing power and nothing happened. In fact a lot happened, so much so that Ghash currently has around 2% of the hashing power.

It is hard to present an unbiased view when one is necessarily biased. But as an engineer, one would expect someone like Rusty to present a more complete view of the problems as both sides see them and the solutions as both sides present them. His failure to do so raises questions on his integrity pertinent to his responsibility to present to the community a software which can work and problems are not hidden under the carpet.

Specifically, the Lightning Network which wishes to change bitcoin from a payment system as stated by satoshi to some experimental, uncoded, and conceptually flawed settlement system needs to be openly presented with all its attack vectors laid out as a lot of money could be lost otherwise. I do not see how I can trust such code however when one is extremely biased and makes no attempt whatever to overcome it.

Good enough is not sufficient where money is concerned Rusty. And to suggest that Gavin, or even Satoshi himself, is myopic, seeing only the "user" ui point of view, is slightly idiotic and shows that you do not quite understand the debate or you wish to wilfully mislead.

I was ready to be persuaded by your first statement: "In 2011 he was proposing to Satoshi that he should take over the project[0]", but then I actually clicked through the link you provided and, while expecting some shocking revelation, I instead found what seems to be a solitary email sent to the ether so to speak and a very reasonable email too at that.

This "attack" on someone who worked for google as a network engineer, who has contributed to bitcoin for years, who has given us SPV wallets and a million other things, in this forum out of all places, sounds desperate.