So Satoshi created Bitcoin (BSV) and developers came along and hijacked the protocol. Now we have BTC with segwit, taproot LN ect ect, this is not Bitcoin. If you want to own Bitcoin as described by Satoshi Nakamoto in this whitepaper, buy BSV, the real Bitcoin.
Okay, stupid question: The security of the system seems predicated on attackers' combined computing power being unable to exceed honest users' combined computing power. Could the invention of quantum computers introduce a scenario in which disrupting the blockchain for disruption's sake overturns the predicated security? Note that the most likely developer of a quantum computer would be partnered with a government which might have an interest in burning down the entire network. In other words, if I were a James Bond villain, I would: 1) Develop a stable quantum computer. 2) Replicate the QC until I have more processing power than the entire collection of BTC nodes in existence. 3) Grind the network into powder, making BTC and all other crypto worthless. All crypto wealth collapses as no one can tell which blockchains are real and which are fake anymore. If the above scenario is even slightly possible, I'd stay in BTC until the first quantum computers are announced.
A bunch of holders pretending they understood all of this. Simply having the coin does not make you smarter when it comes to tech. So please spare everyone. That being said, still seems like a revolutionary idea.
Hi guys, quick question here. Why is the word "We" instead of "I" used by Satoshi in the abstract? We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. Is Satoshi referring to himself along with Martii Malmi and/or other early public contributors? Or is Satoshi acknowledging/hinting that Satoshi Nakamoto is multiple people?
Riddle me this: Whom is faster? Human. Or, or, AI? Ok so if the AI is banking while a human has become bored... now thats not a reason to hate on someone lmao
I’m just wondering how the miners will be rewarded after all the Bitcoin is mined? According to the white paper, miners are rewarded with Bitcoin, but after the Bitcoin is all mined, what then? Will attackers be able to comprise the system if no one is being rewarded for mining?
What word stands out in this sentence of the Introduction...... "In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions."
the fees are what pays the miners. that's the whole point of mining: use your pc components to solve equations for the crypto transaction in exchange of some of the cryptocurrencies, which are paid by the people who make transactions, called gas fees
Suggesting that you link to the author’s site or you are infringing on his copyright. He is beginning to enforce this. craigwright.net/bitcoin-white-paper.pdf
I’m really glad for this video but you have to be really careful to read what’s there and not introduce words that aren’t out change words that are (ie could vs would). If i wasn’t reading while listening I wouldn’t have noticed.
