Quote from: york780 on March 31, 2017, 06:57:16 PM

Quote from: notme on March 31, 2017, 06:48:29 PM

Quote

12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

I don't know what you guys want, but it isn't Satoshi's Bitcoin.

There's a reason why 'Satoshi' dissapeared.
I am Satoshi. You are Satoshi. We are all Satoshi. Thats the whole idea about bitcoin right? decentralisation. If there is/was one founder, and one founder only and he would reveal himself it would harm the decentralisation process. Nobody rules bitcoin.

You're right that nobody rules it. However, majority hashing power is by definition Bitcoin. If you reject that premise the whole thing falls apart.