How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change?
I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya.
See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No?
Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness.
SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise.
I am pretty confident the white paper doesnt say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing
Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol.
By golly, sometimes you almost sound like you wrote it
Nope. It'd be fun to dream about such, but I was heads-down in a different tech field at the time.
(or was involved at an early stage)...since everything afterwards was "crap".
Well, I did not say that. Let's keep it honest.
If you did-much respect. Respect even if you did not and just being a bit cranky about later comers like PW re-writing/modifying a "perfect" code.
Does "perfect" code even exist?
Probably not. But after such a breakthrough innovation, which carefully balances concerns across so many independent fields of thought (protocols, economics, sociology, game theory, computer science, software development), why should we be in a hurry to replace it with something else? Especially seeing as the design has not been shown to have any demonstrable flaws? Is it not possible that the mind that was able to balance all these divergent concerns may just have some insight that has escaped the code jockeys to follow?
But more to the point of this twig of the thread, is it not evident that Hairy was trying to ridicule my point that SegWit was not part of the original design? Too bad for HM that, while not explicit as features in the code, the 0.1 implementation fully allowed for such to be built atop it. Without recourse of changing the protocol.