Of course he's not Satoshi, he's using the name for publicity. If he wasn't claiming that, most of us wouldn't even know about him.
Lying is the fastest way to make yourself known, but bullshitters burn bright and fast. If you're Satoshi then sign a message with one of his addresses, it's really that simple.
And the idea of a Bitcoin bank is stupid. FU Craig.
Topic: Craig Wright: "You dont need to hold the blockchain. Its ok if only banks do." - page 3. (Read 2442 times)
July 01, 2017, 03:27:59 PM
July 01, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
I understood that if any bigger economic user = merchants on the planet runs a full node, all incl me poor are fine.
Sounds good, sounds Satoshi
Sounds good, sounds Satoshi
July 01, 2017, 02:50:57 PM
Wow! What an underappreciated video. I'm surprised their isn't more discussion in this avenue.
Thanks for linking directly to video.
It's little more than HD mirroring. I can see his point.
If we are talking MadeSafe the case would be different due to the inherent properties of that tech. The only good I have got from running a "full node" has been losing 0.8BTC due to super crazy circumstanes.
One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010. However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885. Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes.
We only have one major ISP in the US due to mergers. If the ISP cuts off service to BTC, similar to what they did with Torrentz it would not matter the number of copies if all located in the USA. What matters is the access to these copies. I run a node to keep up on the blockchain, but you can get a copy of the raw file without a node.
Hard drive mirroring is not the tech that makes bitcoin special. It's the blockchain. That is to say, it's not being able to copy the blockchain to a bunch of locations that exists but that blockchain exists.
Lose 0.8 BTC and you'll switch to a Trezor really fast.
That's a valid point.
He brings an interesting persective. Whether he is or is not Satoshi is irrelevant. This is an interesting point. Bitcoin works. It's sweet. Sometimes the fees go up, but we need more people to adopt it.
Thanks for posting this ...
Thanks for linking directly to video.
On the latest Craig Wright appearance there are some interesting claims. He says you don't need to hold the blockchain yourself, he attacks full validating nodes, he says it's all meaningless and you don't need it.
It's little more than HD mirroring. I can see his point.
If we are talking MadeSafe the case would be different due to the inherent properties of that tech. The only good I have got from running a "full node" has been losing 0.8BTC due to super crazy circumstanes.
At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.
One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010. However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885. Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes.
We only have one major ISP in the US due to mergers. If the ISP cuts off service to BTC, similar to what they did with Torrentz it would not matter the number of copies if all located in the USA. What matters is the access to these copies. I run a node to keep up on the blockchain, but you can get a copy of the raw file without a node.
At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.
Hard drive mirroring is not the tech that makes bitcoin special. It's the blockchain. That is to say, it's not being able to copy the blockchain to a bunch of locations that exists but that blockchain exists.
How can he be against people holding copies of the blockchain and validating their own transactions, which is what gives you the only way to be 100% certain that your money is not being (and i quote his term) manipulated?
Lose 0.8 BTC and you'll switch to a Trezor really fast.
Another claim to analyze is that he says the more people use bitcoin, the more censorship resistant it becomes ...
That's a valid point.
He brings an interesting persective. Whether he is or is not Satoshi is irrelevant. This is an interesting point. Bitcoin works. It's sweet. Sometimes the fees go up, but we need more people to adopt it.
Thanks for posting this ...
July 01, 2017, 02:47:04 PM
Someone can't simply create something revolutionary in the financial system as bitcoin (which stands against everything the banking system represents) and still support banks, this simply make no sense to me, the contradiction is definitely there. I wouldn't take a word from Craig Wright seriously. I'm not even sure why and how he is back suddenly.
He tried to create his own Bitcoin bank called Denariuz Bank. The whole point of Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin was to get away from banks, and Craig Wright wanted to create a bank. That's enough to convince me he's not Satoshi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright
Quote
Wright was the CEO of the technology firm Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Group (Hotwire PE), which planned to launch Denariuz Bank, the world's first bitcoin-based bank, though it encountered regulatory difficulties with the Australian Tax Office and failed in 2014.
July 01, 2017, 02:37:58 PM
Two or three big nodes is plenty! 
July 01, 2017, 02:36:27 PM
Someone can't simply create something revolutionary in the financial system as bitcoin (which stands against everything the banking system represents) and still support banks, this simply make no sense to me, the contradiction is definitely there. I wouldn't take a word from Craig Wright seriously. I'm not even sure why and how he is back suddenly.
July 01, 2017, 02:15:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAcOnvOVquo&t=2h24m43s
On the latest Craig Wright appearance there are some interesting claims. He says you don't need to hold the blockchain yourself, he attacks full validating nodes, he says it's all meaningless and you don't need it.
At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.
My question is simple: How can he be against people holding copies of the blockchain and validating their own transactions, which is what gives you the only way to be 100% certain that your money is not being (and i quote his term) manipulated?
Another claim to analyze is that he says the more people use bitcoin, the more censorship resistant it becomes, even if the blockchain is huge, because at that point it's "too big too fail" because everyone is using it. He says there are 75.000 banks on earth, and makes the point of saying "if every bank ran a node, that's 75.000 nodes, so it's safer than now. Also, it's impossible that all banks on earth agree on a particular agenda/are manipulated for the same agenda, so this is not a problem".
There's a lot of claims like these that would require further inspection of the game theory at play because to me it sounds like half asses arguments or at least vague at times.
Also, on the Q&A section when asked "what will you do with your bitcoin if you hardfork? will you dump the coins on legacy chain for the nChain chain?" he snaps and insults the guy. Can you fucking believe it?
I want to actually see what happens if there is a hardfork, because if there is a hardfork and he really believes his model is better AND he is really satoshi, then he will surely dump his million bitcoins to ruin the legacy chain's price? otherwise he is bullshitting and it's another proof he isn't satoshi.
On the latest Craig Wright appearance there are some interesting claims. He says you don't need to hold the blockchain yourself, he attacks full validating nodes, he says it's all meaningless and you don't need it.
At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.
My question is simple: How can he be against people holding copies of the blockchain and validating their own transactions, which is what gives you the only way to be 100% certain that your money is not being (and i quote his term) manipulated?
Another claim to analyze is that he says the more people use bitcoin, the more censorship resistant it becomes, even if the blockchain is huge, because at that point it's "too big too fail" because everyone is using it. He says there are 75.000 banks on earth, and makes the point of saying "if every bank ran a node, that's 75.000 nodes, so it's safer than now. Also, it's impossible that all banks on earth agree on a particular agenda/are manipulated for the same agenda, so this is not a problem".
There's a lot of claims like these that would require further inspection of the game theory at play because to me it sounds like half asses arguments or at least vague at times.
Also, on the Q&A section when asked "what will you do with your bitcoin if you hardfork? will you dump the coins on legacy chain for the nChain chain?" he snaps and insults the guy. Can you fucking believe it?
I want to actually see what happens if there is a hardfork, because if there is a hardfork and he really believes his model is better AND he is really satoshi, then he will surely dump his million bitcoins to ruin the legacy chain's price? otherwise he is bullshitting and it's another proof he isn't satoshi.
Jump to: