What damage are they afraid he will do with commit access? Wouldn't it be better to wait for him to commit so they can see what the "hacker" is trying to accomplish?
A lot of people run Bitcoin Core directly from the github repo without checking the git commit signatures; someone who pushed a backdoored commit to that repo could easily steal funds.
No one should be running Bitcoin Core from the repo without checking git commit signatures; not everyone whose account gets hacked will post on a blog rather than pushing underhanded but otherwise normal looking commits to the repo - the 'we can prevent damage by revoking access because we saw a weird looking blog post' is just a laughbly bad excuse for a security practice.
It's defense in depth.
This looks like an obvious attempt at furthering your agenda by using a a nonsense excuse to push Gavin out.
EDIT: I see downvotes but not a rebuttal.
This is all a facade from people who think everyone is dumb enough to believe them. Its like a child being caught with chocolate all over their face saying they didn't steal a candy bar.
Maybe Peter Todd is the one that hacked into Gavin's blog. They've had an ongoing public disagreement for some time and Peter could benefit from making Gavin look bad.
1. Craig actually is Satoshi but is withholding the only real proof anyone cares about for some unknown reason
2. Craig is a fraud and Gavin was tricked
3. There's some other strange situation going on (Gavin is in on it? Gavin is being coerced? Gavin's reddit account was also hacked?)
EDIT: I'm inclined to believe #2. If Craig were Satoshi he wouldn't need a coordinated "Official Announcement" with major publications and a long hand-wavy blog post describing how to verify a signature. He could just sign the message "Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of Bitcoin" using a known Satoshi Bitcoin address' private key and post it anywhere. The community will know what to do. This is literally the only proof any who knows more than a little about Bitcoin will accept.
The easily-debunked cryptographic proof offered up so far has in fact supported suspicions that he is a conman. If Craig Wright turns out not to be Satoshi, and Gavin was not hacked or coerced, then I feel sad for Gavin Andresen's reputation, as well as Bitcoin's as a whole.
I'll also be relieved if he is a conman, because anything else would be sorely disappointing...
It is unreasonable to assume that someone who is not an expert in stage magic can detect/defeat basic deception techniques. I don't know about this particular case but I see no reason to rule out deception, anyone can be fooled especially if they are specifically targeted.
EDIT> Also, re: media. If you've ever given an interview and then been surprised at what was actually written / reported, this wouldn't surprise you. In this case, the media is relying heavily on the tech experts. It's only necessary to con the techies.
- Satoshi died somewhere along the line and there will never be a reveal since he didn't pass the keys to someone else.
- Satoshi enlisted Wright to take over for him if/when he would pass away. He did and now Wright is bungling the whole affair
- Wright either knew Satoshi or was with him at the very beginning of BTC. This would explain his possession of very early block chain keys (#9 instead of #0.
- Wright had been working with Satoshi since the beginning, and now Wright (who many have commented is crazy) had a falling out of some sorts and is rushing to take credit as BTC's creator.
- Wright is simply a con man trying to flush Satoshi out by claiming he is BTC creator and then waiting for him to appear. Not sure what the end game would be in this scenario
- Wright is crazy AND a con man and is trying to claim credit as BTC creator for several reasons, many of which are probably motivated by money.
This could go several different ways, but for my money, it seems like Wright was probably around in the early days, and got in right away with a bunch of early keys to earlier block chains. From the outside it looks like his life as a fraud is starting to unravel and catch up with him. I feel like this is the last gasp to try and retain some respectability in the community. He already has a litany of legal problems his facing, and considering very few people believe he is Satoshi, this isn't going to end well for him.
So, one would expect his commit access to be restored. Unless, of course, if "We think he was hacked" was actually an excuse rather than a reason.
However, every time someone has interacted with the Bitcoin community and dealt with the assholes telling them "you just don't get it! this is the new economy!", it makes that someone smile a little bit each time there's bad news.
Green U.S. money? At least, at the end of the election cycle, I can cast a vote for someone who will appoint a Fed chair I like. There's some tenuous link from the decision-makers back to me, an American voter.
The bitcoin people? They just said "here it is, oh and also we call all the shots, kthxbye". What if there's some feature of the new power structure I don't like? Where can I seek redress? Ask a bitcoin advocate, and what you get is crickets.
A new power structure should be more inclusive of people's voices, not less.
So, in this case, I welcome the failure.
In fact, the status quo is that your opinion and vote for that person is ignored. I'm reminded of the Princeton/Northwestern study suggested Congress passes laws that run contrary to the will of the people ~90% of the time.
So what's the value in your tenuous link when inputs are sent straight to /dev/null
Also, with bitcoin, all interaction is completely voluntary. There are no legal tender laws or taxation propping up the value of the currency.
> So, in this case, I welcome the failure.
I wouldn't hold your breath. Bitcoin has been through many incidents that are far worse than this, and it's only come out stronger for it.
And you and the other guy are illustrating really well what I mean about the bitcoiner anti-democratic point of view.
Running a piece of software isn't voting, and isn't "power to the people," but you guys get so stuck up on this wordplay about how running the software is the real, authentic "voting" that you really kinda miss the boat there.
So, well done with that.
Who calls for the vote? Who counts them? Who is allowed to vote? Who isn't? Who proposes ideas for a vote?
When the pool of people who understand what Bitcoin is gets totally overwhelmed by people who don't, what keeps really stupid decisions from being made?
When people vote for something that isn't already coded, who is responsible for coding it?
With Bitcoin, you can "cast your vote" for what software the network is running too; you buy a miner and contribute to a mining pool that agrees with your philosophies. Of course, unlike a federal election (or maybe not...), more capital => more votes.
The core developers really don't have any power beyond that given to them by individual miners and mining investors.
Maybe if you said "every year on March 1st, everyone shuts down their client and chooses a new one" and there were several well-maintained clients that had different policy choices encoded into them for people to "vote" with, then we'd be a little closer to a democratic power-in-the-hands-of-the-people kind of thing.
But as it is right now? No, there's no voting, nor democratic power-sharing, in Bitcoin.
Being able to change one's vote at any time regarding any issue seems preferable to everyone sitting powerless for four years at a time in between scheduled elections.
I'm saying, bitcoin isn't "power to the people," that it is anti-democratic by design, and you and the other guy here are trying to dodge and ignore that with language games about "the market decides" and irrelevant stuff about how politicians lie.
I get it, bitcoin is your chance to be one of the people "in the know" as it were, one of the powerful ones, and you don't want to give that up. Please spare us the rhetoric about how it's for our own good, though.
All I can do is choose which client to run. You have all the power I do. That anyone does.
I'm not even addressing what the OP was telling you, that you don't vote and that the "votes" are all in the hands of a few people.
But, even if everyone was entitled to a vote, being able to change it anytime they like would make a for a very, very poor government system.
I can only imagine, 1st long term project the government had that didn't give you short term profit you would change your vote.
P.S.: Interestingly enough is exactly what is happening in Bitcoin right now: long term sustainability calls for changes to the block size, but short term profit calls for it to remain the same, so the few miners that control the network just go for the short term profit.
Increasing blocksize is actually a negative, because it lets people continue sending low-value transactions that they wouldn't actually pay for. It externalizes their costs to the entire network, making verification harder, etc.
When the required fee makes your current uses of btc unprofitable, either send larger amounts at a time or use a sidechain, etc. The fee is a DoS-prevention mechanism.
I don't disagree. But you can hardly call it "undemocratic".
The reality is that just an handful of people can vote in this system, the ones that control all the mining. All other people are left using a system in which they have no say.
That's a classical textbook Plutocracy and completely un-democratic.
With Bitcoin, you just...don't use Bitcoin. If you're invested at the point somebody does something you don't like, sell off. Presumably the ones on top are heavily invested themselves and will feel a massive sell off in their bottom line.
All that said, the different power structure I was talking about is one where nobody has that kind of power to begin with. That there is somebody at the top at all is a failure, IMO.
No, you've gotten countless answers: "Nowhere."
In the same way you can't reverse a transaction, you can't have a vote. It doesn't work that way.
> A new power structure should be more inclusive of people's voices, not less.
You've had a voice. We've seen your posts about how you're so ignored because nobody is writing a patch to release more coins. It's been heard, but it's a bad idea. If you like that type of currency, use your government's.
> Basically, what bugs me about bitcoin is that legitimate critiques are always brushed off with really absurd replies.
Have you posted any legitimate critiques? I haven't seen any...
> Or the deflationary economics of the system itself, and those aren't good either.
Yeah, that's an example. You don't know the system or the goals so how could you have valid comments, let alone legitimate criticism?
* The Economist
* Gavin Andresen (unless he was hacked)
> ...to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.
It's logical to think that when a core dev of something as sensible as bitcoin get's hacked and you can't trust the code anymore, it takes a really big chunk of credibility from bitcoin.
Gavin is one of many core devs, and Bitcoin good enough security procedures to survive a dev's machine being hacked.
sensible (en) - vernünftig (de)
sensitive (en) - sensibel (de)
Regardless of whether or not you think it's overhyped, it's a really really cool experiment in economics and cryptography.
For security "nerds", which hn is full of, it's a veritable holy grail of technological security.
Stands to reason that the majority of issues Bitcoin has appears to be human, not technological. Since the technology works so well, bad actors appear to be targeting human vectors of attack- create controversy where there is none, drive wedges between key players, sow dissent among community (a day doesn't go by that r/bitcoin doesn't complain about vote manipulation).
Bitcoin's biggest security threat lies in it's governance, especially if there are subversive elements in its community. BTC leadership has to get their house in order.
Very debatable and yet to be proven in any real way. Lots of things have "potential" but bitcoin seems to consistently fail at actually doing anything. Doubtful it will ever solve any problems outside its current scope of use.
I mean you have the combination of an open source community, libertarians, and a shitload of money. The outcome is pretty obvious.
In The Netherlands, you can order takeaway food at practically any restaurant with bitcoin. Overnight, this was the biggest expansion in the acceptance of Bitcoin to date.
Whatever your opinion is about bitcoin, it absolutely does not reflect the current reality, where Bitcoin is seen more and more as a serious alternative for payments.
You can claim that Bitcoin is going down the toilet all you like, but by all metrics relevant to its purpose (namely value and popularity) it's doing extremely well.
Perhaps your mistake is that you only notice when something that could be construed as negative happens around Bitcoin. Such things are usually more entertaining than the relatively mundane improvements and victories that occur on a regular basis.
> all the hacking, skimming and fraud
Sure, I was impacted by that. A while back, I noticed some movie tickets charged to my card in Australia. I called my bank, disputed the charges, they reversed them and sent me a new credit card. Took...maybe 20 minutes of my time? Max?
And from this I'm meant to learn I can't trust the current system? Honest question: Why?
In addition most banks are privately insured against fraud.
I've dealt with an 8k fraudulent charge on my card before. The bank investigated, sent over a sworn affidavit to sign, and they refunded my money in less than 24 hours.
I had a $20 error charge on my card and it took a month for the refund. This is with the vendor stating in writing it was their error. I no longer bank there.
This only applies to personal accounts, not business accounts.
There is a reason why scammers work so hard to find someone to "cash checks" or "withdraw funds" or do that kind of nonsense. Electronically stealing funds is easy. Keeping those funds is hard.
Eh. Tell that to the Greeks. And it happened for much less than "civilization failing".
Humans are folly but the technology speaks for itself.
A state that enforces nearly constant but low inflation; a process by which money has to be invested and flow into an economic system in order to have a shot keeping the same value.
I bought 7BTC in April-May 2011 when they were at 7EUR each, during one of the first press-coverage booms. Private key is currently in a cupboard on my old laptop; And precisely because Bitcoin has not inflation, they're staying there.
What currency is that? Cause it sure isn't bitcoin. Maybe Dogecoin?
The strength of a state-sponsored fiat currency is two-fold:
First, the amount of commerce done with the government.
And second, the government's ability to use force to prevent the use of other currencies in the licit domestic market, to stop the free movement of cash, and to detain those that do not comply.
Succinctly, fiat currencies are maintained by tanks and taxes.
Bitcoin has already proven a boon to Cypriots and Greeks as their countries' economic systems have collapsed and had their deposits placed on lockdown. It has value as a global means of exchange that can't be artificially suppressed.
My personal belief is that the credibility of the dollar will fall through the floor as contemporary social issues like access to health care remain unaddressed. People will need another currency to exchange and bitcoin or another cryptocurrency will be the most ready, the most pertinent.
Bitcoin is a game changer. It is held up by pure faith alone. That makes it more of a commodity than a currency. For example, Gold made good currency simply because of pure faith.
I can't pretend I know I where the blockchain will lead us, but personally I'm fascinated to find out.
(Quick P.S. for any Brits or Aussies, us Yanks referring to the blockchain just means blockchain tech, not specifically the Bitcoin blockchain.)
No "tanks", no taxes, no currency.
But, to address the elephant in the room, as one can see from recent events divorcing fiscal union from monetary union can have some very detrimental effects.
Another permutation: It's almost as if a government holds your liberty as collateral to ensure use of their currency domestically.
If you limit the use-case to "within the borders of a nation state" then its not easy to make a strong case for Bitcoin being anything other than a fringe currency.
If you consider that increasingly, the bulk of all commerce is international, a truly stateless, international currency starts to make more sense than a currency managed by any one state or group of states.
But how much of it? This will stop the value from going to zero, but what's to enforce a specific exchange rate between dollars and other goods? Is it just the fixed price of postage stamps? (I'm actually inclined to agree with you but this is one detail I haven't worked out)
Its value, like the value of any form of money, are based on the ideal properties of money.
...come on, this is just getting silly. Nobody really thinks Gavin was hacked, do they?
High-profile Bitcoin dev Gavin Andresen inexplicably supports the fraudster: http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
So Craig Wright isn't Satoshi then? Somebody should tell the BBC ;)
On the other hand, it's absolutely possible that Wright is Satoshi, and is simply engaging in an elaborate hoax in which Satoshi does a great job of pretending to be someone else who is doing a bad job of pretending to be Satoshi. It could be!
This is the bitcoin equivalent of Last Thursdayism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism) and much like the original, it's impossible to disprove.
Bottom line though: The real Satoshi could trivially prove he was Satoshi if he wanted to; Wright has not. Either 1) he's not Satoshi, or 2) he doesn't want to prove that he is Satoshi. Given that he spoke to the BBC in an apparent attempt to prove he is Satoshi, we can provisionally rule out option 2, leaving option 1:
He's not Satoshi.
From what I've read so far the "evidence" does not barely reach "ordinary" and seems to be straight up bullshit. Considering the last round of "Craig Wright is satoshi" ~6 months ago was similarly bullshit at this point there's a pattern of Wright being a bullshit artist.
Either way, popcorn time, fun to watch from the sidelines.
 people have also been combing through the script screenshots (…) Wright posted, and there's a pattern of oddities: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hfwg7/steve_wrigh... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hgas6/wrights_sig...
You can't prove a negative. There's absolutely no published evidence to support the claim that he is Satoshi, and there's no reason to believe that he is.
Sure you can https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
So you can't prove a negative if:
* It is infeasible to quantify over the entire underlying model
* You're working within a logic that doesn't admit it as an axiom, for practical reasons.
It's easy for me to argue that there are no pink ducks on my desk. It's very difficult to argue that there are no pink ducks.
People usually use "pink duck" as "example of thing that is unlikely to exist". If you choose "proposition guaranteeing that the thing doesn't exist", I think you get this argument:
Claim: There are no non-existent objects.
Proof. Let x be a non-existent object. x is a witness for its own proof, so x exists. Contradiction.
That one works in a couple logics I looked up. People boldly claiming that "For any predicate P, forall x. ~P(x) is unprovable" would have to reconcile this example. Also, the empty model satisfies that.
Of course, he may have literally meant "You can't prove a negative", as in "lumberjack on Hacker News is unable to produce a proof of any formula in the format given above". That depends on how eagerly you evaluate "You".
Unfortunately, proving that you are "not (not Satoshi)", doesn't prove that you are. The negative space is not one to one, but one to many.
You might have been meaning to point out that the characters of evidence needed in either case are somewhat different: the problem with proving some negatives via an argument from silence is that an absence of evidence is expected. You see, it's an absence of expected evidence that's evidence of absence! If, given something were true, we wouldn't expect to have evidence of it, then such "arguments from silence" (we lack evidence, therefore it's not true) do not work.
So when I want to prove that someone is not a giraffe, I can reasonably expect that if they were, they would have a long neck, walk on four long legs, probably stand taller than a given human -- if I see no evidence that they have any of these, we have an absence of expected evidence. This functions as evidence of the absence of their giraffe-ness.
But when I want to prove that someone is not immortal, say, there is no expected evidence of immortality for me to hang my hopes on. I mean, I might hope that they'd been born long enough in the past that they'd have documentation of their existence lasting out hundreds of years, but I'd have to introduce more assumptions to expect this. Or I might hope that they'd been subjected to lethal force sometime during their lifespan and lived through it, but in the posh, cushy developed world there's not necessarily any reason to expect that the typical 30-year-old has suffered a grievous injury, so I'd have to introduce added assumptions about their rough past before I could expect this. Still, proof would still be possible in such a circumstance -- just ask them to kindly survive stepping in front of a train or so -- and the negative could be proved. It's just that it can't be proved by an argument from silence.
The usual way to make this semi-rigorous is to use the definition of conditional probability, where the event "A given B" is written "A | B" and its probability is defined as Pr(A | B) = Pr(both A and B) / Pr(B). Then we have some claim C with some new evidence N and some old evidence O; we can prove that three numbers that need to be known:
P = Pr(C | O)
the prior probability of C before adding evidence N;
Q = Pr(N | O and C)
the likelihood that C would generate this evidence N, given the old evidence,
R = Pr(N | O and not-C)
the likelihood that not-C would generate this evidence, given the same.
Q * P
Pr(C | N and O) = --------------------
Q * P + R * (1 - P)
We can then see that arguments from silence are still supportive (Pr(...) > P) whenever Q > R, but may not raise P to the level where we'd really bet on it. In particular if P is very unlikely (e.g. immortality would have a P of one in 10 billion or worse, given what we've seen about the world), then with Q=1 (e.g. not dying when shot, given immortal), you're still looking for R to be commensurately tiny (e.g. the shot must have survival odds 10 billion to 1 against) to raise the argument from silence to a decisive position. Any weaker sort of silence does not confirm it enough to raise it to the level of plausibility, although of course you can rinse and repeat with N now incorporated into O (so we can talk about someone who has been shot, poisoned, and hanged many times on many different occasions and each of them might have a 1/100 survival rate; still if we have her surviving 5 such things which are individually bad evidence, we may get a non-negligible probability that all together they are good evidence and either she's conspiring with her killers or else maybe she is, in fact, immortal.)
All we know is that, at the moment, he is trying to convince that he is Satoshi but uses deceptive proofs.
Is there any actual evidence that I'm not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
(b) He can then claim priority as benevolent dictator for life, with a reasonably good chance that the community will follow him. For example, he could probably fork BitCoin to have more frequent transactions and larger block sizes, and his fork would hit a critical mass of users to the point where the BitCoin Core group would have to accept those changes or else risk a blockchain split which could kill the currency altogether.
I have bought and sold items from/to individuals using bitcoin, bought and sold bitcoin from exchanges, received them in donation for programs I have produced, and sent them in donation for programs/services others have produced/rendered.
Unfortunately I never really made a full-throated commitment to btc so I'm not a bitcoin millionaire. :(
Secondly the devs come to some form of consensus and Gitian build is created and signed. https://gitian.org/.
Thirdly, the miners decide whether to build the blockchain based on the newer version of the software.
Probably with this required status checks feature: https://help.github.com/articles/enabling-required-status-ch...