<unnamed>

Public Key

npub104xqlhm8cyl64kamz90rm9wr2dzj65pj2wv50qpfzt3n898j5wcqlv3nf7

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs86nq0manuz0a2mwa3zh3ajhp4x3fd2qe98x28sq539cenjne28vqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejs34qnsa

Publishing to

nostr.wine

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:35:37 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15
📝 Original message:Sounds legit.
On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:43 PM, 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

2023-06-07 15:47:22 UTC

- reply

2023-06-07 15:21:22 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-05-16
📝 Original message:It looks like it might be firewalled, probably just need to fix the ACL in EC2.
-Laszlo
On May 16, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas at schildbach.de> wrote:
> Apparently British Telecom also cannot speak to Peter Todd's server.
>
> That another very large ISP in Europe.
>
>
> On 05/15/2014 01:50 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>> I'm bringing this issue up again. The current Bitcoin DNS seed
>> infrastructure is unstable. I assume this is because of we're using a
>> custom DNS implementation which is not 100% compatible. There have been
>> bugs in the past, like a case sensitive match for the domain name.
>>
>> Current state (seeds taken from bitcoinj):
>>
>> mainnet:
>>
>> seed.bitcoin.sipa.be OK
>> dnsseed.bluematt.me OK
>> dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org SERVFAIL, tried multiple ISPs
>> seed.bitcoinstats.com OK
>>
>> testnet:
>>
>> testnet-seed.bitcoin.petertodd.org SERVFAIL, just from Telefonica
>> testnet-seed.bluematt.me OK (but only returns one node)
>>
>> Note: Telefonica is one of Europe's largest ISPs.
>>
>> I would try to improve DNS myself, but I'm not capable of writing C. My
>> "fix" would be to reimplement everything in Java -- I doubt you guys
>> would be happy with that.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
>> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available
>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

2023-06-07 15:18:21 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09
📝 Original message:On Apr 9, 2014, at 8:12 PM, slush <slush at centrum.cz> wrote:
>
> These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environments, but maybe there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling into bitcoind so any instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?
>
Teredo is available by default on Microsoft systems and it's actually very common to see Teredo addresses as peers in torrents - this should work for bitcoin too, though I'm not sure if an app needs to set special flags to gain access to it.. there are probably some security settings around it. In the US, AT&T/CenturyLink provide IPv6 by way of 6RD for DSL customers, Comcast has native IPv6 on residential (but not business) cable modems, and of course those who want to can always set up with a tunnel broker like Hurricane Electric - they even let you use your own IPv6 addresses. IPv6 is great, but having an application running its own tunnels would not be a good way to leverage it.
Probably what's keeping a lot of them from being reachable is that most people just plug their CPE into a NAT router (without IPv6). Teredo can help here though.
Putting an IPv6 checkbox in the settings with a link to an explanation might help with education and result in smarter operators who can make their nodes reachable. A built in checker would be even better - something like a checklist showing red/green for different aspects of reachability (v4/teredo/v6).
-Laszlo