{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1wkvp6vlwa78nyh2k0cvaz6kej2xkt3axe6fdyxg5a5xu73sduagsf3nkfa","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1wkvp6vlwa78nyh2k0cvaz6kej2xkt3axe6fdyxg5a5xu73sduagsf3nkfa","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17\n📝 Original message:Satoshi,\n\nAs much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the\nfact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently speaking to a\ntroll.\nCan you copy and paste what you wrote above, to\nhttp://p2pfoundation.ning.com as well, like how you did during the Dorian\nfiasco?\n\n\nMuch appreciated.\n\n\nOn Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing\n\u003e list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would\n\u003e achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin\n\u003e XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my\n\u003e concerns about this very dangerous fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original\n\u003e vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed\n\u003e Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the\n\u003e consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was\n\u003e designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if\n\u003e their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly\n\u003e everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being\n\u003e forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers\n\u003e are violating the \"original vision\" they claim to honour.\n\u003e\n\u003e They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to\n\u003e be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new\n\u003e knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For\n\u003e example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security\n\u003e of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also\n\u003e preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should\n\u003e take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a\n\u003e better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on\n\u003e altruism.\n\u003e\n\u003e If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what\n\u003e \"Bitcoin\" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the\n\u003e use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin\n\u003e a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially\n\u003e robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.\n\u003e\n\u003e Satoshi Nakamoto\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/d49b7b8b/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}