rich1.0npub1wkvp6vlwa78nyh2k0cvaz6kej2xkt3axe6fdyxg5a5xu73sduagsf3nkfahttps://nostr.ae/npub1wkvp6vlwa78nyh2k0cvaz6kej2xkt3axe6fdyxg5a5xu73sduagsf3nkfanjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 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>