What does Satoshi think?
It is possible to find a trail that leads to the truth?
Satoshi the founder account of Bitcointalk
Screenshot taken at Bitcointalk dot org.
Bitcointalk and its founder
Maybe you already know that I believe that there is/was a group of people involved in the developement of Bitcoin. What many believe is a one person project by a male human being known as Satoshi Nakamoto. There could well be one individual that is/was the Chief Technical Engineer {CTE} of course. Maybe the reason why the original whitepaper was written in the plural we form, might have to do something with it being presented as a scientific proposal. This is already something where I do tend to get Bitcoin fundamentalist factions jump at my throat. Sure, because, as we all know, it is impossible to deny a proposal, to propose a change or to give it a try. And I find it hard not to get cynical about this whole holy Bitcoin whitepaper nonsense. Where texts are taken out off context to fit the agenda of just about anybody. Am I the only one waiting for some bankers money billionair to start using it to proof it will crash in on itself?
The Satoshi founding account over at BitcoinTalk dot Org only was active there for about a year. It is interesting to have a look into what the legend wrote. As there seem to be many claims that have been made by the business split version of Bitcoin. Which I decided to call bCash again, because I do consider them a hostile take-over faction. But it seems Karma is going to take care of that on saturday the 13th 2018, when bCash gets a forking blockchain splitter clone themselves. A warm welcome therefore to bCandy that is going to loot a huge part from the bCash looters that robbed it from Bitcoin. Cryptos, such fun, never a dull moment. Never mind that though, what is interesting is what Satoshi did post at the BitcoinTalk dot Org forum. As that is as close as we can get to have a look into the visionairies actuall mind(s?)...
Take it slow...
This is one reply made by the Satoshi account, at the BitcoinTalk dot Org forum, that I would say already proofs bCash is a hostile take-over attempt. Done by a group of business people. Let me quote Satoshi here:
No, don't "bring it on".
The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.
I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.
Satoshi does seem to be a visionairy.
Screenshot taken at Bitcointalk dot org.
Sidechains and channels
There is this propaganda comming from the bigger blocks attacking faction that suggests Satoshi would have been against things like Sidechains and Channels between blockchains. Just one Bitcoin blockchain that has huge blocks. One of the last interesting conversations done with the Satoshi account might suggest something else though. Let me quote the Satoshi account over at BitcoinTalk dot org again:
I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.
The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
There can be more than one?
Screenshot taken at Bitcointalk dot org.
Yes, I do know this is about the concept of BitDNS. But it is to show you that whomever is/was behind this Satoshi account apparantly was open to multiple blockchain solutions. Interacting with each other. How pure would you consider this to be? Would you still dare to claim that the real Satoshi would have been against things like SegWit and/or the Lightning Network?
Another quote from that same BitcoinTalk dot Org forum thread by the Satoshi account:
The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work.
While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?
If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.
You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.
In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal. You've been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility. We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes.
Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.
Seems Satoshi was thinking outside the blocksize?
Screenshot taken at Bitcointalk dot org.
bCash is just about business
Now I really would invite you to read the posts of the Satoshi account over at BitcoinTalk dot Org. This in addition to the original Bitcoin whitepaper. And you might be surprised to notice how open minded and smart this person/group actually is/was. The software was released under a Free and Open Sourced MIT license. Basicly meaning anybody could create their own Crypto or improve on the concept of Bitcoin itself. And from what I read at BitcoinTalk dot Org the Satoshi founder account had many ideas how to move forward into the future. Even by creating possible sidechains and different services intertwined with the Bitcoin blockchain. Another thing that got more clear to me was the Satotshi account actually was warning to take it slow. One step at a time, let the software evolve first. Yes, back then in 2010, I know, but the credo was to make it grow graduately and strengthen the software along the way.
In the words of the Satoshi founder account that was. And it might have been a mistake to trust a developer like mister Gavin Andresen with the project. Because he apparantly was the one starting to push for business involvement, as I recall. That already started to worry me back then. As I did get that Bitcoin could not deal with business getting in, it did not have the right resources to be able to do so. And at some point they would want to take over, wanting to bypass the clear limits of the Bitcoin software. Or like Satoshi did seem to forsee it by writing: "... the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage." The business side of Bitcoin was not ready to go serve mainstream, and it still is not. Currently it can hold a lot of value securely for a long time, that is mainly it. The rest will still take some time to evolve.
The business tune that was set by mister Andresen and companions was to my disliking and I guess to many others at that time. The heat that brought to Bitcoin did become a burden. Where it got worse when those who wanted to get control over Bitcoin started to spread the big blocks word around. Yes, as far as I see it, it was actually the Business Cash faction that mirrored what they were doing onto Bitcoin Core developement. Mister Craigh Wright talking in Arnhem about how he is a business man first, not a libertarian, nor an anarchist, he is in it for the business. And he even wants banks and goverments in. He wants to patent the work of his team. And he wants bigger blocks inside a controlled area. We are talking about 1 to 4 GigaByte blocks. If you did not get it, that means centrallized control of whatever that blockchain would be called. He is a supporter of bCash. Do not tell me I did not warn you...
Business Cash is not Bitcoin
Claims that mister Craig Wright would be Satoshi or that he was the leader of a group with that name, do seem quite nuts. Mister Gavin sell Bitcoin to the business realm ASAP Andresen at some point stated he was, but took his words back later. When you would take some time and read the kind and patient, free of business take-over propaganda, replies made by the Satoshi account at BitcoinTalk dot Org and then have a good listen to mister Craig Wright, or just read his Tweets, you know he is nowhere near being Satoshi Nakamoto. And I even doubt if he ever was part of that group that made the Bitcoin whitepaper. Just like Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin, but better be called Business Cash, BCH.
And if you like the way that faction is going about things, no matter what the truth is about Bitcoin and Satoshi then that is your free choice. Just like it is mine to write a post like this where I did my best to get another point of view out there. Do you want to use a Crypto for your business then bCash is not even the best choice out there. Dogecoin is even faster and way cheaper. And Steem has a much more powerfull blockchain technology. Business CasH BCH only can do 24 transactions per second, Steem can do more than 3333 per second. And they cost ZERO! Hopefully that will get more widely support, but until then I use DOGE for my interchain transactions and day-to-day use. And it even payed to HODL...
bCash is about business trying to do a hostile Bitcoin take-over. It is done on several fronts now. It is the way some people do business, it is not the way it is done by everybody. Short term profit, versus long term vision. There are even those who promote it is alright to do SPAM transaction attacks on the Bitcoin blockchain, to choke the mempool. It is weird comming from well known people who claim to support the non-aggression idea: "Then Bitcoin should not make it possible to flood attack their mempool in the first place." Now change those words a bit and you have an aggressor attacking another person and blaming victims for being hurt as it being their own fault. That is just somebody using weird retorics to make a point for an attacker. "Well, the door was open, so I walked in and took all that had value. They should have locked the door." Sure, it is okay to flood attack the Bitcoin BTC network, just because you found a way to do so. Now I wonder who is using that kind of nonsense to proof their point?
Rant mode OFF
For me this is a blogpost and it will be just that. It is something that does keep my brain occupied now and then. The war over Bitcoin. Was it ment to be a Crypto-Anarchist alternative to the banking monetary governance system, the peoples crypto liberty? Maybe, it could be, considering it pushed out the human intermediate that could be corrupted and compromised and replaced it with neutral programming code. That was pretty smart, although the limitations it had/has would make it difficult to make it happen overnight. Some business people wanted in on it and tried to do a hostile take-over, creating the bCash BCH split. Looting a lot of value out of the 16.5 million already mined Bitcoin, by cloning the BTC blockchain. No matter what they claim, or why they did it, they did create a fake market cap value using futures of some compromised exchanges. But, like I wrote, Business Cash is about to get their own parasite infection on saturday the 13th 2018.
No, I do not buy that BCH crap, just to get some free CDY. Nor do I hold bCash. There are a few Cryptos that I hold, like Steem, Bitshares, HERO and EOS. But also more classic POW types of Cryptos like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Vertcoin, Dogecoin, Vergecoin and BitBeans. And then there is Waves and some Assets on that DEX. Although I have kept away from my Crypto portfolio lately because of all the FUD being spread around. That could be considered market manipulation. Get that leverage while you can? Well, I consider myself more of a long term HODLer anyway.
Will people dump BCH after the 13th of january because of the CDY split, backed by massive Chinese support? Yes, I do think so. But no matter what, remember to only invest in Cryptos what you are willing and able to lose. As for bCash, the faction supporting it will do just about anything to take-over Bitcoin. Even to the part where they will claim the name to be theirs. While I too could claim it is, as you could do also.
A lot of people might buy the Business Cash FUD and propaganda, but some will actually go and read what Satoshi did write. We'll see how this evolves. Maybe it is even good for all the other Cryptos. As where two dogs fight over a bone, the third will get away with it...
Can you find where the Satoshi account states the Twitter bitcoin account and bitcoin dot com are not related to Bitcoin in the BitcoinTalk forum? The truth is there to be found, you just need to know where to look.
A 3 Steem reward for how finds it first and replies with a link to the source at BitcoinTalk dot Org.