📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15
📝 Original message:Sign with the key 5EC948A1 or shut up, you scammer
Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-15 13:43 寫到:
> I have been following the recent block size debates through the
> mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork
> proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal
> release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I
> am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
>
> The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my
> original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I
> designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future
> modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous
> agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of
> charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack
> Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change,
> and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By
> doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original
> vision" they claim to honour.
>
> They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was
> supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since
> that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of
> my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and
> its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a
> competitive monetary system while also preserving its security
> properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to
> come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive
> for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
>
> If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what
> "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and
> through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to
> declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both
> technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very
> disappointing to watch unfold.
>
> Satoshi Nakamoto
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
jl2012 at xbt.hk [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kc…wjfw4
2023-06-07 15:47:22
in reply to nevent1q…aksw
Author Public Key
npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4Published at
2023-06-07 15:47:22Event JSON
{
"id": "1be3b175c3fc48db8db75eabf3490908e6a8601a1ad2f7cc9405c9727a24e7e1",
"pubkey": "b61e2e7ccbf4abd7f49715c62f4ac7a93cbdd5ead0316279c5f5fe9b18dd0aaa",
"created_at": 1686152842,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c2ea875b0594d5635a2a5ab9721c10059f40c62d11975dcc679e649aa5cf3f34",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7c6689677a279bf30ebea706f56970608af654b8480bb86de92c645ef0e1486b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7d4c0fdf67c13faadbbb115e3d95c353452d5032539947802912e33394f2a3b0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15\n📝 Original message:Sign with the key 5EC948A1 or shut up, you scammer\n\nSatoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-15 13:43 寫到:\n\u003e I have been following the recent block size debates through the\n\u003e mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork\n\u003e proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal\n\u003e release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I\n\u003e am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.\n\u003e \n\u003e The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my\n\u003e original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I\n\u003e designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future\n\u003e modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous\n\u003e agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of\n\u003e charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack\n\u003e Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change,\n\u003e and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By\n\u003e doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the \"original\n\u003e vision\" they claim to honour.\n\u003e \n\u003e They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was\n\u003e supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since\n\u003e that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of\n\u003e my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and\n\u003e its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a\n\u003e competitive monetary system while also preserving its security\n\u003e properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to\n\u003e come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive\n\u003e for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.\n\u003e \n\u003e If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what\n\u003e \"Bitcoin\" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and\n\u003e through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to\n\u003e declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both\n\u003e technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very\n\u003e disappointing to watch unfold.\n\u003e \n\u003e Satoshi Nakamoto\n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "aa0e3687e34f0a73acd6c6689455b489b4d59c92b2c8e4816d182f832e5e47551364d93e1d6321fe89f1571bdb3d79fd15c7f5768acf86d6cfc1daf8e1a7fa17"
}