Topic: Satoshi Nakamoto Comes Back To Clear Blocksize Debate... (Read 2681 times)

No it wasn't that was before the email had lapsed and we don't know if there was a password change, but the kiddo who took the lapsed account was trying to make money off it, I am sure if it was the same one it wouldn't have been so clear cut, on the flipside we had no signed message.

Satoshi would never be in favor of a contentious hard fork supported by only two devs, one of them very eager to bend to state agencies (Gavin) and the other pushing for blacklisting and anti-Tor policy (Hearn).

All other bitcoin experts, including Nick Szabo who is the most likely candidate to be Satoshi (up to +80% probability if you do a thorough, rational and objective analysis of both their works and their writing style), favour a more gradual block size increase among other things because increasing the block size x8 is a huge security risk.

exactly, i cant beleive why people want to discuss it again and again, guys the message was not sign, end of history.

Somedays i wish that he never left, so he can fix all those problems from the core dev team, is sad, because we should not have problems from the core dev team...

it's fake, and satoshi didn't sign any msg ever, so there is no way anymore to know if it can be him or not

i think he was to completely remain anonymous

besides this i think that satoshi would be in favor for bigger block because the original core has not any cap, he was planning to improve ddos defence but he ended up making the 1mb limit as a quick precaution

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html



" 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 "

Block debate will always be there and i think the statistics are 60-40 , and may be Satoshi is the one who run this forum..
I pretend to say this because recently made reddit warning was much likely same as the debate reply from satoshi's account.
I guess Both are interlinked to each other.

Satoshi and Variety has many common charachteristics. However, Satoshi is a genius helped by a team of highly qualified man. There are many analysis to find out who really is.

For me, it is not important who is Satoshi.Satoshi wants to establish a mechanism which is self sufficient. Thecnical issues can be discussed and changes are the Tao of the life.There will be a change if it is inevitable.Let it flow.Let it find its soal, Tao is the way of water.

Called it!

It won't be back

He is not going to interfere in the bitcoin decisiones anymore

why he is probably dead?
there is any proof or a topic where people talk about his death?!?

I agree 100%. He follows everything that is happening but he won't react (even though he would solve this debate in a blink of an eye) because he always envisioned Bitcoin as a completely decentralized, community project. One person can't and shouldn't make any decisions.

And if he was to come back and solve a block size debate, how long do we think would be until we wouldn't need his "help" again in the future?

Why?

I think he should stay gone forever... people will just blindly follow satoshi.. that isn't good.

Don't worry, he's give a solution through Gavin.

I believe that he's keeping up with everything bitcoin related, but doesn't want to come back to such trivial question like blockchain size,
but rather to allow the community to decide for themselves, in spirit of decentralization.

cheers

No one thinks the block size should remain 1 MB forever. Literally no one. Everyone in Bitcoin knows that's unsustainable. The question isn't whether to raise the block size, it's how and when.

a thing that would not affect the price, would be him admitting that he is not going to dump his stash or that he didn't dumped with the 1200 ATH, because i suspect he dumped some at that peak

i dunno why but i believe firmly that satoshi is still here, under another name

Mmm... The whole idea that Satoshi had (or my interpretation of his idea) was that the system shouldn't have a single voice making the decisions. It sucks how politics are getting in the way of progress but I don't think he should or will intervene.

And anyway, if I have my facts straight (please correct me if I'm wrong), the blocksize that he first presented was much larger than what the core developpers eventually agreed on. Most likely we can figure out what he would have wanted simply by looking back at the system he originally started.

if he satoshi back, whether it will affect the price bitcoin  ?

If satoshi were back, there would be like 20 threads about the same. Never believe a single thread that states something like that in its clickbait-y title.