It is fake message. Real Satoshi knew that only mail with signed message will be treated seriously - if he is really worried about state of bitcoin then his msg would be signed.
It is another Satoshi impersonation attempt nothing more, nothing less. Satoshi probably know that if he is needed for bitcoin survival then bitcoin already failed.
Topic: "...then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project" - page 2. (Read 1278 times)
January 17, 2016, 10:40:30 AM
January 17, 2016, 10:39:51 AM
Did anybody do a language analysis to find out whether this matches Satoshi's writing style?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylometry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylometry
January 17, 2016, 10:37:01 AM
Unsigned Message: Thats not satoshi...
satoshi would know that a signed message is needed if he is interested that his opinion is recognized
satoshi would know that a signed message is needed if he is interested that his opinion is recognized
That would make that particular issue settle by his intervention BUT it would reinforce the point that if an authority can impose their opinion by their "status" then the system is broken.
It would create a precedent where in each dispute satoshi must say his opinion with a signed message which would in turn prove that BTC is centralized around his decisions.
January 17, 2016, 10:33:43 AM
Unsigned Message: Thats not satoshi...
satoshi would know that a signed message is needed if he is interested that his opinion is recognized
satoshi would know that a signed message is needed if he is interested that his opinion is recognized
January 17, 2016, 10:28:20 AM
In August, a post appeared in the dev mailing list, signed as Satoshi Nakamoto, with an email of Satoshi Nakamoto (not spoofed), from an email that has not been known to have been hacked, which contained the following message and warning regarding the attempted XT coup:
Obviously, the context is still massively relevant to the new "classic" fork attempt as the ingredients are the same.
If the identity of the poster is legitimate, then there is a real risk that a fork might force Satoshi to declare Bitcoin a failed project due to the coup in governance. That will official #REKT bitcoin and crypto in general, no matter which part of the argument anyone supports.
Some say Satoshi needed to sign the mail but there is not a single instance where Satoshi signed anything. Plus if he did he would also be doing the same thing he condemns regarding authority influence. So his message being semi-official / semi-unofficial, can act as a warning, but also as a non-decisive influence.
I want to see the community's weighing of that particular risk, if a fork occurs: Do you expect Satoshi to come out and make an official obituary of BTC if BTC forks - which would make Hearn's (or the other 80something obituaries) pale in comparison?
Quote
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
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
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
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
Obviously, the context is still massively relevant to the new "classic" fork attempt as the ingredients are the same.
If the identity of the poster is legitimate, then there is a real risk that a fork might force Satoshi to declare Bitcoin a failed project due to the coup in governance. That will official #REKT bitcoin and crypto in general, no matter which part of the argument anyone supports.
Some say Satoshi needed to sign the mail but there is not a single instance where Satoshi signed anything. Plus if he did he would also be doing the same thing he condemns regarding authority influence. So his message being semi-official / semi-unofficial, can act as a warning, but also as a non-decisive influence.
I want to see the community's weighing of that particular risk, if a fork occurs: Do you expect Satoshi to come out and make an official obituary of BTC if BTC forks - which would make Hearn's (or the other 80something obituaries) pale in comparison?
Jump to: