Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Governments, Banks

How bitcoin's 'blockchain' could transform banking, voting, and data

-- Tom

 

Satoshi Roundtable: Is Bitcoin Dead due to Scalability Issues

-- Tom

 

Good read and food for thought!

 

How to Prove You’re Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto

-- Tom

 

I would only be convinced if he can transfer some of those genesis block coins to a different address. Absent his ability to do that I will never believe anyone asserting that are Nakamoto!!

 

Why would he want to do that? As I recall, the Australian government claimed that he owes them money. Wouldn't he want to hide Bitcoin wealth?

 

What Will Money Be When Bitcoin Grows Up?

-- Tom

 

My thoughts.

Who would scream I am a billionaire so come and extort from me ---- OVER ---- anonymity and siphoning off millions a year privately. Makes me think the loud screamers would never be him. Just an opinion!

 

Bitcoin, Schmitcoin. The Real Breakthrough is the Blockchain Behind It.

Note: The only way for the blockchain to fail is if the Internet goes down which would mean that the verification cannot occur!

-- Tom

 

"......what’s missing is the math. Wright’s demonstration showed both reporters and Andresen a signature produced by a unique private key believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto. But that signature seems to have be pulled from a public message signed by Nakamoto in 2009, as researcher Patrick McKenzie showed on Github. The message failed to verify when McKenzie attempted to test it, a result of changes made to the OpenSSL protocol in the last seven years."
That was, more or less, all of his "evidence..........

Cornell professor Emin Gun Sirer, who specializes in cryptocurrency, was far less tactful and even accused Wright of an attempt to mislead."We have yet to see proper cryptographic proof," Sirer said in a statement. 'What we’ve seen looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead.'
There is currently no publicly available cryptographic proof that anyone in particular is Bitcoin's creator.
— Bitcoin Core Project (@bitcoincoreorg) May 2, 2016"


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...itcoins-satoshi-nakamoto-just-publicity-stunt

 

Same topic , another excellent article here :-

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto/

"Wright has a history of fabricating evidence in support of his claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Despite his claims of not wanting the notoriety or the attention, he is going to a lot of trouble to construct a reality of himself as Satoshi Nakamoto. In the almost 6 months since the first Wired and Gizmodo stories were published he has had ample opportunity to prove conclusively that he is Satoshi, and the protocol and requirements for doing so are well understood and not onerous. They do not require a 10 page blog post with notepad screenshots of shell scripts explaining Linux commands, file formats or OpenSSL. They also do not involve tightly controlled demonstrations in an environment completely under his control. The real creator of Bitcoin would know this."

If you then read Craig Wright's blog , it's pretty clear what they are getting at

 

OK lets discuss this some. I agree with the two previous posts. His claim to show only the keys to block 9, followed by his refusal to verify access to those genesis blocks are very troubling to his claim of being "him". Its lame-ass to refuse to demonstrate that he can move coins from the first 8 blocks, which he would have total access to. It would cost nothing and in fact there are several miners that would move/transact for him with NO fee just to get authenticity of his claim. But alas, on the surface it appears that he cannot move those coins, indicating to me that he doesn't have the private keys necessary to do so. Being able to move the genesis block of coins to another address in the blockchain would be the "end all" of authenticity. Its not there at this time.

 

Well now , here is some "startling" news today .... Craig Wright appears to have made a " U-turn " ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36213580

We are living in strange times ..... " signs and wonders "

 

The core issue of Bitcoin is not whom is/was Satoshi Nakamoto nor Bitcoins creator's identity - it matters not. The core issue of Bitcoin these days is whether increasing the block size either does or does not affect the decentralization/centralization of the technology or not!!! That is the only issue that matters.

My take on this issue is that increasing the Bitcoin's block size should (if Bitcoin was design/architected properly) not affect decentralization. Decentralization vs. Centralization and Blocksize are two separate architecture/implementation issues, and changing one of either should have no impact on the other with regard to Bitcoin's architecture/properties. If indeed there is a dependency of one on the other or visa versa, that would be a total surprise to me at this point in time. It would also indicate that the initial design/architecture/implementation if flawed.

-- Tom

 

One connection is blockchain size, right? I certainly don't have the bandwidth to handle a full client, even now.

 

Do you know what bandwidth is minimally required to "handle" a full client?

-- Tom

 

Bitcoin.org recommendations:

https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node

 

Mirimir and Tom,

These bandwidth concerns are mostly for the "big fish" in the industry. While my ISP would easily handle those "stats" and limits, I see zero reason to go that route. For the average user a secure platform such as Electrum is so much faster and easier to contend with. I can sign in via any computer and securely do my business without all the super hardware needed to do the 24/7 thing.

With proper planning ahead I can gather everything I need to "jump over" to a full deal if needed, or if Electrum were ever to disappear from the scene.

There is quite a bit of substance to debating the blocksize argument with points on both sides.

 

But that's the problem. It's hard to stay decentralized if only "big fish" can handle the traffic.

 

Has anyone yet done a study of how blocksize affects the bandwidth of the transaction approval process which as I understand requires complete agreement on every transaction - isn't that right?

-- Tom

 

So, in a nutshell, is the blocksize vs centralization/decentralization issue mainly one of throughput and time-to-validate each transaction, i.e. is the thinking that increasing the blocksize causes the time-to-validate a transaction to increase due to slower throughput of blockchain approval?

-- Tom

 

As I understand it, it's that increasing blocksize will speed up validation of transactions, because each block will contain more transactions. However, increasing blocksize will also increase network traffic. And increased network traffic tends to favor centralization.

But really, the issue is just that a network that handles many more transactions must move more traffic. So freezing blocksize is a way to force the system to stay small enough to be highly decentralized.