https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20798805Maxwell has a go at the 'new' 'satoshi' 'email' 'leaker'
Shameful. Shameful if they're legit, shameful if they're edited.
Here was my response to "CipherionX"'s attempts at getting leaks.
I'm quite sure I have read at least some of these before. As such, they really aren't new. Not all of them anyway.
I'm guessing Gregory is just pissed and trying to stifle the revelation that Satoshi directly contradicts several of Blockstream/Core's fundamental sacred cow axioms from his very first reply to Mike.The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling.
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can.
The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards.I thought the same thing.
Here another very eloquent extract:
A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it's working OK.
Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won't matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it's nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.
[...]
Whatever the current capacity of the software is, it automatically grows at the rate of Moore's Law, about 60% per year.
Trolls in 3... 2... 1...
So often in this process quite opposing factions can share a snigger at poor old Maxwell's hopping up and down.
Let me point out that this event also attacks his need to matter as an individual, his self-importance.
But it would be a mistake for any of us to use an appeal to satoshi's authority in order to consruct our arguments.
Especially when this authority is in doubt.
There is no way on earth satoshi would have abused the mother tongue and Moore's Law in the same sentence thusly:
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10.The poor chap made the odd mistake, but never of these sorts.
Another 'editing' fail:
it's nice if we can keep it down . Fakers don't know how to use the subjunctive in the English language, while satoshi did. The texts are littered with such anomalies.
As things stand, no side can prove or disprove the authenticity of these emails, so they are sadly doubly worthless.
So we are left with modern-day realities as the resident shouty man points out
Moore's Law was repealed iirc.
Anyway, I read an article.
Didn't expect the climb after the pump, so did not buy back. And now, waiting for a correction (they always come) before buying back.
That feels like it happened ages ago.
