The White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto review – the future of ...

Bitcoin

Discussion about Bitcoin. BitcoinSV restores the original Bitcoin protocol, will keep it stable, and allow it to massively scale on-chain. BSV will maintain the vision laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto in the 2008 white paper - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
[link]

Bitcoin SV

Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin It restores the original Bitcoin protocol, will keep it stable, and allow it to massively scale. Bitcoin SV will maintain the vision set out by Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper in 2008: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
[link]

AllTheBitcoins: For Bitcoins, forks and orphans

Welcome to AllTheBitcoins: The subreddit appealing to supporters of all the competing implementations and forks of Bitcoin. You are welcome here no matter who you side with or which chain you consider to be the proper Bitcoin design.
[link]

Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin Paper is Now Available in 19 Languages https://t.co/nVxxiPs97z - Crypto Dynamic Info - Whales's

Posted at: January 19, 2019 at 01:22AM
By:
Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin Paper is Now Available in 19 Languages https://t.co/nVxxiPs97z
Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : http://bit.ly/2GynF9t
Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
submitted by cryptotradingbot to cryptobots [link] [comments]

Exact computation of the probability of a double spend attack and correction to Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper

Exact computation of the probability of a double spend attack and correction to Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper submitted by valiron to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Exact computation of the probability of a double spend attack and correction to Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper

Exact computation of the probability of a double spend attack and correction to Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Satoshi Nakamoto Mentioned Trust Minimization 14 Times in the Bitcoin White Paper

Satoshi Nakamoto Mentioned Trust Minimization 14 Times in the Bitcoin White Paper submitted by Donald-TokenHash to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why we do not bigblock

In the wake of all the questions of "why o why is a mere 2x increase in blocksize considered so EVIL by the community boohoo don't we need a blocksize increase at some point anyway?", let me explain why.
TLDR: Blockchains do not scale, full stop. Layers on top of a blockchain might.
Given a fixed amount of data bandwidth available worldwide, blockchains without a block size limit will lead to fewer transactions per second worldwide, than blockchains with a block size limit that backs more bandwidth-efficient transaction layers.
(Data storage is not an issue, has never been an issue, and in the foreseeable future will never be an issue, so forget the $20 1Tb harddisks. Nobody cares about $20 1Tb harddisks.)
Global bandwidth is limited due to physical and technical reasons. Our physical wires need to follow the curvature of the Earth, line-of-sight can't pass through rock and ocean, physical transmission media have maximum frequencies they can transmit before the signal erodes into noise. Technology is not magic.
The very first reply to Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper points out the excessive bandwidth usage of a blockchain:
To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
Or in other words, every transaction needs to get sent to every network participant.
But this is of course a necessity for a decentralized transaction finalization ("settlement") layer with no higher layer but pure physics (proof-of-work) to appeal to.
(Satoshi's reply to the above post is basically "we can do SPV" but it is important to take note that Satoshi was expecting fraud proofs to actually be deployed on the network before people migrated to SPV (Satoshi called these "alerts" in section 8 of the whitepaper). Today to my knowledge the only available fraud proof is BIP180 for proving violations of the block size limit. Peter Todd was working on proofchains to lead eventually to client-side validation, but to my understanding it requires permanent inflation; in addition proofchains terminate at a coinbase, but there is no consensus rule specifying a maximum limit on the coinbase, so even with proofchains a miner can create an invalid block with 100,000 BTC fees in the coinbase, build up an invalid chain that splits it up and mixes it with some valid coins, then pay several thousand SPV users with fake BTC on the invalid chain, and steal more than what they would have earned with honest behavior. Finally, we need fraud proofs for every consensus rule really, and as consensus rules are added via softforks, we need even more fraud proofs to support those rules. Suffice it to say that today SPV is not safe for widespread use due to lack of available fraud proofs; we really do need to run our own fullnodes as much as possible.)
So what can we do to reduce the bandwidth requirements of blockchains? That's what the higher layers are for. Lightning does not require broadcasting transactions to every other Lightning user in the world except in rare occasions such as actual fraud, or if you want to collect money on-chain for a big on-chain transaction (car or house purchase perhaps, where speed is not an issue (you still have to pack your stuff for the movers, for example) but single large-value atomic final payments are important). Instead, Lightning requires only that the transaction be sent only from the payer, through any intermediaries (who get paid in fees, so they do have a need to know the transaction anyway, being part of it economically however tiny), and finally to the payee. That is scaling blockchains cannot muster: only those involved in the Lightning transaction need know it, but blockchains must tell everyone and record the transaction permanently! Unfortunately Lightning requires some "higher judge" to appeal to in case of fraud; fortunately, an impartial perfect judge of correctness, the blockchain itself, already exists.
So if you truly believe that we should scale....
...that it is important that fees be low to enable many small economic transactions...
...and you understand that technology is not magic, but is limited by our ingenuity and by the real world ....
...then you will have no choice but to reject big blocks in favor of higher-layer networks.
Because in a world where block sizes have much larger limits than available now, or with no limit, most of the available bandwidth to you, yes you, will be transactions you really personally wouldn't care about.
But in a world where block size limit is imposed (and I will be honest, and say that perhaps the 4 Mweight limit is too low, but I must also raise the possibility that it is too high, and today we do not have enough information to judge for sure), then there is a bound to the bandwidth you will use for blockchain transactions, and most of your available bandwidth will be for transactions that you personally are involved in.
Which world do you think will let you send and receive more of your own transactions? The world of big blocks or the world of small blocks?
Perhaps we do indeed need a block size increase and perhaps the cost is not too onerous. But to show that, you need to show that the block size increase is necessary, that the cost on everyone's bandwidth is low, that the typical expected user can be expected to have this much bandwidth in total and we should allocate this much bandwidth to on-chain transactions (a shared cost imposed on all users) and this much bandwidth to off-chain transactions of the user.
(And perhaps too SPV can be made to work: but still we need more work on making SPV safe, before we all dive into a world of widespread SPV; let us at least first consider things like UTXO commitments and private querying of blocks (e.g. Neutrino). And perhaps that will not be necessary, if instead we smallblock and use off-chain networks.)
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Satoshi Nakamoto Mentioned Trust Minimization 14 Times in the Bitcoin White Paper

Satoshi Nakamoto Mentioned Trust Minimization 14 Times in the Bitcoin White Paper submitted by MetallyRetarded to BITCOIN_INDIA [link] [comments]

Satoshi Nakamoto Mentioned Trust Minimization 14 Times in the Bitcoin White Paper (x-post from /r/Bitcoin)

Satoshi Nakamoto Mentioned Trust Minimization 14 Times in the Bitcoin White Paper (x-post from /Bitcoin) submitted by ASICmachine to CryptoCurrencyClassic [link] [comments]

We are glad to announce the listing of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV)Rocket Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is the protocol aimed to follow the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper

We are glad to announce the listing of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV)Rocket Bitcoin Satoshi Vision is the protocol aimed to follow the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper submitted by thacypha to bitcoinsv [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Why we do not bigblock

The following post by almkglor is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7bsd90
The original post's content was as follows:
In the wake of all the questions of "why o why is a mere 2x increase in blocksize considered so EVIL by the community boohoo don't we need a blocksize increase at some point anyway?", let me explain why.
TLDR: Blockchains do not scale, full stop. Layers on top of a blockchain might.
Given a fixed amount of data bandwidth available worldwide, blockchains without a block size limit will lead to fewer transactions per second worldwide, than blockchains with a block size limit that backs more bandwidth-efficient transaction layers.
(Data storage is not an issue, has never been an issue, and in the foreseeable future will never be an issue, so forget the $20 1Tb harddisks. Nobody cares about $20 1Tb harddisks.)
Global bandwidth is limited due to physical and technical reasons. Our physical wires need to follow the curvature of the Earth, line-of-sight can't pass through rock and ocean, physical transmission media have maximum frequencies they can transmit before the signal erodes into noise. Technology is not magic.
The very first reply to Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper points out the excessive bandwidth usage of a blockchain:
To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
Or in other words, every transaction needs to get sent to every network participant.
But this is of course a necessity for a decentralized transaction finalization ("settlement") layer with no higher layer but pure physics (proof-of-work) to appeal to.
(Satoshi's reply to the above post is basically "we can do SPV" but it is important to take note that Satoshi was expecting fraud proofs to actually be deployed on the network before people migrated to SPV (Satoshi called these "alerts" in section 8 of the whitepaper). Today to my knowledge the only available fraud proof is BIP180 for proving violations of the block size limit. Peter Todd was working on proofchains to lead eventually to client-side validation, but to my understanding it requires permanent inflation; in addition proofchains terminate at a coinbase, but there is no consensus rule specifying a maximum limit on the coinbase, so even with proofchains a miner can create an invalid block with 100,000 BTC fees in the coinbase, build up an invalid chain that splits it up and mixes it with some valid coins, then pay several thousand SPV users with fake BTC on the invalid chain, and steal more than what they would have earned with honest behavior. Finally, we need fraud proofs for every consensus rule really, and as consensus rules are added via softforks, we need even more fraud proofs to support those rules. Suffice it to say that today SPV is not safe for widespread use due to lack of available fraud proofs; we really do need to run our own fullnodes as much as possible.)
So what can we do to reduce the bandwidth requirements of blockchains? That's what the higher layers are for. Lightning does not require broadcasting transactions to every other Lightning user in the world except in rare occasions such as actual fraud, or if you want to collect money on-chain for a big on-chain transaction (car or house purchase perhaps, where speed is not an issue (you still have to pack your stuff for the movers, for example) but single large-value atomic final payments are important). Instead, Lightning requires only that the transaction be sent only from the payer, through any intermediaries (who get paid in fees, so they do have a need to know the transaction anyway, being part of it economically however tiny), and finally to the payee. That is scaling blockchains cannot muster: only those involved in the Lightning transaction need know it, but blockchains must tell everyone and record the transaction permanently! Unfortunately Lightning requires some "higher judge" to appeal to in case of fraud; fortunately, an impartial perfect judge of correctness, the blockchain itself, already exists.
So if you truly believe that we should scale....
...that it is important that fees be low to enable many small economic transactions...
...and you understand that technology is not magic, but is limited by our ingenuity and by the real world ....
...then you will have no choice but to reject big blocks in favor of higher-layer networks.
Because in a world where block sizes have much larger limits than available now, or with no limit, most of the available bandwidth to you, yes you, will be transactions you really personally wouldn't care about.
But in a world where block size limit is imposed (and I will be honest, and say that perhaps the 4 Mweight limit is too low, but I must also raise the possibility that it is too high, and today we do not have enough information to judge for sure), then there is a bound to the bandwidth you will use for blockchain transactions, and most of your available bandwidth will be for transactions that you personally are involved in.
Which world do you think will let you send and receive more of your own transactions? The world of big blocks or the world of small blocks?
Perhaps we do indeed need a block size increase and perhaps the cost is not too onerous. But to show that, you need to show that the block size increase is necessary, that the cost on everyone's bandwidth is low, that the typical expected user can be expected to have this much bandwidth in total and we should allocate this much bandwidth to on-chain transactions (a shared cost imposed on all users) and this much bandwidth to off-chain transactions of the user.
(And perhaps too SPV can be made to work: but still we need more work on making SPV safe, before we all dive into a world of widespread SPV; let us at least first consider things like UTXO commitments and private querying of blocks (e.g. Neutrino). And perhaps that will not be necessary, if instead we smallblock and use off-chain networks.)
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Satoshi's Vision for Bitcoin as told by its Predecessors - A review of the Papers Quoted By Satoshi Nakamoto in his Bitcoin Whitepaper

Satoshi's Vision for Bitcoin as told by its Predecessors - A review of the Papers Quoted By Satoshi Nakamoto in his Bitcoin Whitepaper submitted by parakite to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SV is the only Bitcoin protocol that follows the vision set out by Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper in 2008 - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

submitted by thacypha to bitcoinsv [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to BitcoinSerious [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to Crypto_Currency_News [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to CryptoCluster [link] [comments]

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think?

A review of the original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. This was obviously the genesis of the crypto revolution. What do you think? submitted by The-Crypto-Portal to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

'In 8 days, it will be the 10th birthday of the Bitcoin White Paper released by Satoshi Nakamoto on October 31, 2008. I looked for a nice poster of it and I found some cool layouts on internet but no one was in the style I wanted, so I did a layout by my own' * X-post

'In 8 days, it will be the 10th birthday of the Bitcoin White Paper released by Satoshi Nakamoto on October 31, 2008. I looked for a nice poster of it and I found some cool layouts on internet but no one was in the style I wanted, so I did a layout by my own' * X-post submitted by zcc0nonA to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

03-21 13:25 - 'Urrrrr no, if you read what I said and you know what problems nakamoto over come in the original white paper, and then stating that scaling was truly possible through basic SPV wallets seems odd. / Just as this other g...' by /u/CreepyCranfield10 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 2-12min

'''
Urrrrr no, if you read what I said and you know what problems nakamoto over come in the original white paper, and then stating that scaling was truly possible through basic SPV wallets seems odd.
Just as this other guy has asked a similar question which also seems odd, such a genius getting the basics completely wrong in fact so wrong that as for the scaling issue it meant the whole invention didn’t work properly and certainly not well enough to do what it was claimed.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: CreepyCranfield10
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Satoshi Nakamoto goes public and denies he's bitcoin ... Mystery Founder Of Bitcoin: Uncovering Satoshi Nakamoto's ... Bitcoin or BTC and Satoshi Nakamoto 9000% Gain till this day 2020. Story behind of Cryptocurrency. Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin Whitepaper - Explained and ... Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin Power and Fortune

Satoshi Nakamoto began coding the first implementation of Bitcoin in C++ in May of 2007. In August of 2008, he sent private emails to two well-respected cypherpunks, Hal Finney and Wei Dai, asking them for feedback on early versions of the Bitcoin white paper. They both gave Satoshi positive feedback, telling him they found it very promising. It consists of Nakamoto’s breakthrough 2008 paper Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, a guide to it by blockchain aficionado Jaya Klara Brekke, along with appendices, an introduction ... Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Satoshi Nakamoto [email protected] www.bitcoin.org Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main The paper that first introduced Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto's original paper is still recommended reading for anyone studying how Bitcoin works. Choose which translation of the paper you want to read: English (Original) Bahasa Indonesia. According to widely acknowledged history of origin of bitcoin system Nakamoto was a highly skilled scientist (or group of scientists) who have found a Niko’s designing concerning Bit Gold and thought up an idea of its improvement, he has published technical description of bitcoin and decided to embody it by designing of unique bitcoin customer. . Changing of date of publication of articles ...

[index] [31523] [6623] [25857] [33874] [20817] [14583] [13259] [7048] [26300] [16374]

Satoshi Nakamoto goes public and denies he's bitcoin ...

(Audiobook) The Original Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto - Duration: 26:01. Bitcoin WhitePaper 49,512 views. 26:01. How to Make $500 a Day Trading ONE Stock ... Experts agree that uncovering Satoshi Nakamoto's identity could have an immense impact on bitcoin's economics and internal politics. » Subscribe to CNBC: htt... Development of bitcoin Nakamoto has stated that work on the writing of the code for bitcoin began in 2007.[8] On 18 August 2008 he or a colleague registered the domain name bitcoin.org,[9] and ... We have been getting tons of questions about Satoshi and his bitcoin whitepaper. So in todays video, we thought it would be a good idea to simplify and expla... A reclusive Japanese American man named by Newsweek as the founder of bitcoin, denies any involvement with the digital currency. But only after leading repor...

#