Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 215 results by Eastfist
Torrent seeding for bitcoin is of course possible, you just have to write the client with built-in bitcoin functionality. However, it borders on piracy (if you're seeding illegal content). Therefore, you have to be extra careful.
You can use it for whatever purpose you want. All those references to pedophiles, drugs, guns, violence, etc., was hard satire joke because if Bitcoin was meant to be like the Internet, it has to accommodate everything. Doesn't mean I condone any of it.
Re: Where's the financial gain for Mike and Gavin coming from ?
I recall him mentioning something about computer science research grants. That's why he had to annoint himself as "Chief Scientist" at Bitcoin Foundation, otherwise wouldn't qualify for it.
He became "Chief Bitcoin Scientist" after he handed his old role of "Lead developer" of Bitcoin Core over to Wladimir Van Der Laan. Though it's possible the bitcoin foundation gets some grants, I searched and couldn't find any info.
It was mainly funded by grants and donations in the very beginning. Matonis had his connections too.
Weather or not it is or it is not Satoshi the person sending does have some valid points on the nature of what BTC was and is meant for. If it was Satoshi and is following what is going on, maybe Satoshi should come back and reinvent Bitcoin and make it how he wanted to see it in the future and make continued updates or even to release a new coin under satoshis control and his only. am sure he can do it as he started out with Bitcoin. If it is Real and not a Hoax then Satoshi stand up for what you have made and show the current developers how it is meant to be done. If it is a Hoax then game on at finding the real satoshi and getting his comments public.
Too dangerous. Just use what already exists, but be extra careful. If it works, good. If it doesn't, oh well.
Re: Where's the financial gain for Mike and Gavin coming from ?
I only know from the past. I don't know how it's changed since though. But that's how Gavin was paying us (and himself) back then, with grant money. So I'm going to assume it's still their main source of funding.
Gavin gets paid by the Bitcoin Foundation who in turn got paid by their sponsors. What grant are you talking about? first time I ever heard of it, can I get one too?
Mike Hearn was a senior engineer at Google and co-owns a number of anti-spam patents with Google. Google lets certain employee's spend 20% of their time working on any project they want, Mike choose Bitcoin as his project in 2011. He quit his job in 2012/2013 to work on Bitcoin fulltime and is now paid by the Bitcoin Foundation, significantly less than what he was paid at Google.
Thats not to say there isn't a financial gain. This change could have impacts on mining revenue, it's hard to know for sure whether they have a financial reason for doing it. I think their reason is probably desperation but also a grab for more control over Bitcoin, the blocksizelimit does need to be changed but not via the insanely dangerous way they are attempting.
I recall him mentioning something about computer science research grants. That's why he had to annoint himself as "Chief Scientist" at Bitcoin Foundation, otherwise wouldn't qualify for it.
Re: Where's the financial gain for Mike and Gavin coming from ?
not to mention being one of the early bitcoin instaminers Gavin scored atleast one $25 million USD windfall i know of 
as well as gaining 260k + a year from the bitcoin foundation of awhile......so yeah good to see we've got an alternative to those greedy bankers 
as well as gaining 260k + a year from the bitcoin foundation of awhile......so yeah good to see we've got an alternative to those greedy bankers And technically it's not illegal because it's govt grant money. He and Jon Matonis know all the legal loopholes and stuff so they fully exploit that to stuff their pockets. That's why they are so overzealous about the project.
Re: Where's the financial gain for Mike and Gavin coming from ?
Government grants. Hearn is also the son of a wealthy Google investor, so a lot of his ego-tripping is daddy issues. Gavin gets a salary is administrator and also getting paid via grants for research and such. It's A LOT OF MONEY.
So, you believe that a government and a Google shareholder are behind their push for a higher maximum block size?
I only know from the past. I don't know how it's changed since though. But that's how Gavin was paying us (and himself) back then, with grant money. So I'm going to assume it's still their main source of funding.
Re: Where's the financial gain for Mike and Gavin coming from ?
Government grants. Hearn is also the son of a wealthy Google investor, so a lot of his ego-tripping is daddy issues. Gavin gets a salary is administrator and also getting paid via grants for research and such. It's A LOT OF MONEY.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
Eastfist, it's pretty apparent that you don't have any grasp of the origins of bitcoin and Satoshi's anonymity even as he interacted with early adopters. No one has admitted to knowing Satoshi's real-world identity. Therefore no one can validate that someone is Satoshi except by Satoshi signing a message such as from the Genesis block's key or a similar source that is solidly linked to Satoshi. If you have a concrete suggestion on how else he can do it (not just ignorantly and vaguely suggesting other people must know somehow) please do share.
LOL. Here we go again. Like I said, you don't seriously think this is how humans interact with each other do you? The early adopters may "voluntarily deny" knowing Satoshi, but they KNOW who he is. It's unbelievable how you think. I'm sensing this "verify Satoshi the boogeyman's ID" is coming more from Bitcoiners than anyone else. I don't think Satoshi owes any Bitcoiners anything. That's the whole point. That's why I say core devs and early adopters have more burder on their shoulders because they know Satoshi personally or met him personally.
Satoshi used an email account from anonymousspeech.com which lets you pay by cash in the mail to preserve your anonymity. He set up this forum using the same payment system of cash in the mail and only accessed it through Tor. Why would he go to all that trouble to preserve his anonymity and then reveal his identity to some early adopters? I don't believe any early adopters knew his real identity.
Cover-up (COUGH) cover-up.
IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared.
This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.
That "Satoshi" would have either been Jeff Garzik or Gavin Andresen way, way, way after the original Satoshi left. That's why all this debating is nonsense. They're arguing with themselves, don't you guys realize that? Here's an example: Gavin says something like "Satoshi said this and that" and quotes himself when he took his turn as Satoshi. Then he gets his way. Hearn knows this, so he quotes Gavin (as Satoshi) so that Hearn gets HIS way. In the end, they get what they want. So Bitcoiners need to be more aware of what's going on.
Oh lol that's funny. Someone is extremely scared of XT winning and they are resorting to cheap tactics, such as impersonating satoshi. Pretty sad to see.
Exactly. Or rather, manipulating the communique with Satoshi.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
That is a different situation than what is going on here. Sure the likelihood that that person is who they say they are is pretty high, but what about some really famous person who no one has ever seen before (no pictures, nothing) and have only been known online and suddenly one day a random person says that he is this person? Would you really trust that guy to be saying the truth? Or would you ask for more proof of his identity? That is what we are doing here. No one knows who satoshi is, what he looks like, or anything about him except that he is some guy on the internet who created this cool thing called Bitcoin. Without any other information about Satoshi, no one can really vouch for him and we can't know that this person is him without some kind of proof since anyone can say "I am Satoshi".Again. Have some faith in the HUMAN element. So if you asked the core devs and early adopters, even if they deny it, are you seriously saying they can't voucher who Satoshi Nakamoto really is? Seriously? You put your faith into an artificial lock and key to tell you the truth? That would mean you don't trust any of them.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
Eastfist, it's pretty apparent that you don't have any grasp of the origins of bitcoin and Satoshi's anonymity even as he interacted with early adopters. No one has admitted to knowing Satoshi's real-world identity. Therefore no one can validate that someone is Satoshi except by Satoshi signing a message such as from the Genesis block's key or a similar source that is solidly linked to Satoshi. If you have a concrete suggestion on how else he can do it (not just ignorantly and vaguely suggesting other people must know somehow) please do share.
LOL. Here we go again. Like I said, you don't seriously think this is how humans interact with each other do you? The early adopters may "voluntarily deny" knowing Satoshi, but they KNOW who he is. It's unbelievable how you think. I'm sensing this "verify Satoshi the boogeyman's ID" is coming more from Bitcoiners than anyone else. I don't think Satoshi owes any Bitcoiners anything. That's the whole point. That's why I say core devs and early adopters have more burder on their shoulders because they know Satoshi personally or met him personally.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
Why is Bitcoin forking?
Satoshis plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. Its the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community.
Thats the vision I signed up for. Thats the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. Thats the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for.
...
A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (client only mode). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasnt needed I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshis reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
In Satoshis words i trust
Satoshis plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. Its the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community.
Thats the vision I signed up for. Thats the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. Thats the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for.
...
A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (client only mode). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasnt needed I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshis reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
In Satoshis words i trust
Not a cult? Gotta be more responsible for your own decision making in life. May some bad shit happen, don't blame Satoshi. This isn't a game.
A lot of these "official" Satoshi posts and publicity propaganda are taken in bits and pieces and released at opportune times. Some parts are real, some are not. But it's obvious it's being manipulated now.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.