Anon Moto [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17 📝 Original message:Satoshi, As much as I want ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17
📝 Original message:Satoshi,
As much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the
fact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently speaking to a
troll.
Can you copy and paste what you wrote above, to
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com as well, like how you did during the Dorian
fiasco?
Much appreciated.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing
> list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would
> achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin
> XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my
> concerns about this very dangerous fork.
>
> The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original
> vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed
> Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the
> consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was
> designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if
> their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly
> everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being
> forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers
> are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
>
> They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to
> be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new
> knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For
> example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security
> of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also
> preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should
> take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a
> better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on
> altruism.
>
> If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what
> "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the
> use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin
> a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially
> robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
>
> Satoshi Nakamoto
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/d49b7b8b/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Satoshi,
As much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the
fact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently speaking to a
troll.
Can you copy and paste what you wrote above, to
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com as well, like how you did during the Dorian
fiasco?
Much appreciated.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing
> list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would
> achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin
> XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my
> concerns about this very dangerous fork.
>
> The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original
> vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed
> Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the
> consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was
> designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if
> their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly
> everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being
> forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers
> are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
>
> They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to
> be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new
> knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For
> example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security
> of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also
> preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should
> take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a
> better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on
> altruism.
>
> If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what
> "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the
> use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin
> a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially
> robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
>
> Satoshi Nakamoto
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/d49b7b8b/attachment-0001.html>;