...snip...
...
The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)
No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain.
What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes:
...snip...
Not so and your entirely missing the point that the real satoshi was making.
BSV is the menace to the network, both the forked chain and the bastardized software implementation. No distinction, BCH included.
BTC is the original Bitcoin implementation.
BSV (and BCH) are no longer compatible nor in lockstep with the original Bitcoin (BTC).
Craig Wright is NOT satoshi.
No. In your quoted bit, Satoshi was clearly speaking of an alternate client implementation working upon the same blockchain. There is simply no other way to interpret 'all nodes getting identical results in lockstep'. If you can't see that, your [sic] a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant.
The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
...
The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)
No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain.
What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
...snip...
Not so and your entirely missing the point that the real satoshi was making.
BSV is the menace to the network, both the forked chain and the bastardized software implementation. No distinction, BCH included.
BTC is the original Bitcoin implementation.
BSV (and BCH) are no longer compatible nor in lockstep with the original Bitcoin (BTC).
Craig Wright is NOT satoshi.
No. In your quoted bit, Satoshi was clearly speaking of an alternate client implementation working upon the same blockchain. There is simply no other way to interpret 'all nodes getting identical results in lockstep'. If you can't see that, your [sic] a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant.
Yet your telling me I'm supposedly "a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant.", when you think BSV is the 'original' Bitcoin.
Yup. Not because we disagree on which sha256 blockchain tracing its ancestry to satoshi's genesis block is the preferred. But rather because you have some completely nonsensical interpretation of one of satoshi's utterances, and you cling to this flawed interpretation, trying to buttress some vacuous point, to which it has absolutely no relation whatsoever.
So you were publicly posting on this forum about 5 quarters before me. Do you think that entitles you to some special insight? Riiiight.
Quote
I know who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is with 99.9% certainty.
And the answer is...?
Right - what I thought.
Quote
Satoshi Nakamoto is NOT Craig Wright.
Go on, prove me wrong! We are waiting and we will have the last laugh.
Go on, prove me wrong! We are waiting and we will have the last laugh.
I have no reason to try to prove you wrong. You are utterly without effect. OTOH, I make no representations as to the identity of Satoshi.
The value of a Bitcoin unhampered by an insane centrally planned production quota upon transaction throughput exists completely independent of the identity of its creator. The entire CSW drama is an irrelevant sideshow.
Quote
Done here now.
Good. Every day that you do not return will make that day just that much sunnier.
