4 ms·

> "Satoshi" (or this group of people) must have worked months or a year on this before putting it up on source control. In one [0] of his emails to Mike Hearn

by pash 9y ago

> "Satoshi" (or this group of people) must have worked months or a year on this before putting it up on source control. In one [0] of his emails to Mike Hearn [1] Satoshi Nakomoto wrote that he worked on Bitcoin for two years before releasing the paper and code: > I must admit, this project was 2 years of development before release, and I could only spend so much time on each of the many issues. His emails to Hearn and others make clear that his creative process consisted mainly of writing code until he was convinced things worked. In my opinion, Satoshi Nakomoto was a lone hacker. 0. https://pastebin.com/wA9Jn100 https://pastebin.com/wA9Jn100 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2080206.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2080206.0

FooHentai 9y ago
Also, an unreliable narrator.
- FooHentai 9y ago
  Hmm, I think this comment was taken little more negatively than I had intended. My fault of course for not expanding on the point, which is this: Satoshi maintains anonymity, by choice. Therefore, any information about Satoshi's identity, directly stated or inferred from things said by them, logically have to be treated as unreliable. With the goal of remaining anonymous, Satoshi has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from providing true information about themselves. It is in their interest to not provide any information about themselves, and for any information that is provided them be inaccurate. None of this casts any aspersions on either Bitcoin or Satoshi. Ah heck, I sound like Vizzini. Maybe I should just drink the damn wine ;)
keypusher 9y ago
> It'd be worth implementing some kind of more robust auto update mechanism, or a schedule for the phase in of this [the block size], if only because when people evaluate "is BitCoin worth my time and effort" a solid plan for scaling up is good to have written down. Prescient words from Mike Hearn.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  I think I'm going to print this out and frame it on my wall.

by pash 9y ago

FooHentai 9y ago

Also, an unreliable narrator.

FooHentai 9y ago
Hmm, I think this comment was taken little more negatively than I had intended. My fault of course for not expanding on the point, which is this: Satoshi maintains anonymity, by choice. Therefore, any information about Satoshi's identity, directly stated or inferred from things said by them, logically have to be treated as unreliable. With the goal of remaining anonymous, Satoshi has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from providing true information about themselves. It is in their interest to not provide any information about themselves, and for any information that is provided them be inaccurate. None of this casts any aspersions on either Bitcoin or Satoshi. Ah heck, I sound like Vizzini. Maybe I should just drink the damn wine ;)

keypusher 9y ago

> It'd be worth implementing some kind of more robust auto update mechanism, or a schedule for the phase in of this [the block size], if only because when people evaluate "is BitCoin worth my time and effort" a solid plan for scaling up is good to have written down. Prescient words from Mike Hearn.

ryanmarsh 9y ago
I think I'm going to print this out and frame it on my wall.