It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

From p.16:

This exercise has taken the reader through the creation of a 3072-bit RSA PGP key using GnuPG 1.4.7 as it was compiled into a Microsoft Windows binary in 2007, thereby disproving the claims made in the Motherboard article. From this we can only conclude that the perpetrators of that misinformation did not understand the workings of PGP sufficiently to implement a different hash algorithm that was, as we have clearly demonstrated, readily deployed over a year before the release of the version used in the creation of the disputed keys. We hope that the foregoing explanation will go some way towards their education.

Maxwell states that his copy of the key log is definitive, however he has not supplied any timestamped supporting evidence to validate this assertion. We may either conclude that Gregory Maxwell understood what he was asserting and has intentionally misled the community in stating that the PGP keys referenced had been backdated, or that a uᴉoɔʇᴉq core developer did not understand the workings of PGP sufficiently. uᴉoɔʇᴉq was designed to allow for validation and proof in places where trust was being abused. It was created to ensure that trust authority alone is not sufficient.?


There follows a section on "centralisation", p.17:

There is an inherent warning in the foregoing discussion with regard to the growing power of individuals who may not fully grasp the full potential of the Blockchain but who nevertheless have a disproportionate level of influence. A case in point is the current dispute regarding the size of the Blockchain. It is not the increase in size of the Blockchain that is leading towards centralisation, it is the creation of an unintended scarcity. In limiting the size of the Block, the issue of control and the use of the protocol is centralised to a limited number of developers. The uᴉoɔʇᴉq protocol was designed to be the primary protocol in the same manner that IPv4 and soon IPv6 are the primary networking protocols. It may be that changes to uᴉoɔʇᴉq lead to forks in the future just as IPv4 is migrating towards IPv6, but the core of the Internet remains based on a single set of protocols. The core of this system is an RFC or “request for comment” system and not a fixed standard.

The result is that we have multiple protocol stacks across the Internet that are interacting. This is the plan for uᴉoɔʇᴉq and the Blockchain. The uᴉoɔʇᴉq core protocol was never designed to be a single implementation maintain by a small cabal acting to restrain the heretics. In restricting the Blocksize, the end is the creation of a centralised management body. This can only result in a centralised control function that was never intended for uᴉoɔʇᴉq. Satoshi was removed from the community to stop this from occurring. Too many people started to look to Satoshi as a figurehead and controller. Rather than experimenting and creating new systems within uᴉoɔʇᴉq, many people started to expect to be led. In the absence, the experiment has not led to an ecosystem of experimentation and research, of trial and failure, but one of dogma and rhetoric.

Several core developers, including Gregory Maxwell have assumed a mantle of control. This is centralisation. It is not companies that we need to ensure do not violate our trust, but individuals. All companies, all governments and all of society consists of individuals and the interactions they create. In the past, these ideas were discussed extensively with Mike Hearn and others who saw the need for the Blockchain to be unconstrained. Gregory Maxwell has been an avid supporter in limiting Blocksize [note 3]. The arguments as to the technical validity of this change are political and act against the core principles of uᴉoɔʇᴉq. The retention of limits on Block size consolidates power into the hands of a few individuals. This is the definition of centralisation.

The Internet was not a controlled system. Many applied for and received the equivalent of a standard in implementing an RFC, but at the same time, the development of new Internet Protocols occurred prior to the writing of an RFC. Many RFCs came to be written years after the protocol was widely adopted. This is what uᴉoɔʇᴉq was designed for. Not for cautious stagnation as the banks have allowed themselves to enter, but for change and growth. uᴉoɔʇᴉq was not created to have a single core team developing. It was developed in a manner that would allow anyone to create their own version. Each version would compete and could lead to forks, but this is a desired outcome. Where a fork is created it will either lead to a new set of protocols, or it will be rejected. Only the new forms of transactions are truly at risk and their introduction can be planned without the requirements for a central governing body.