Why on Earth do you think Gavin Anderson, the person Satoshi passed the project on to would not understand this? Call us all ignorant and in bad faith as you are clearly god.

I think there are two possibilities.

Either he was Satoshi, but really wants the world to think he isn’t, so he created an impossible-to-untangle web of truths, half-truths and lies. And ruined his reputation in the process.

If he was Satoshi, we should respect his wish to remain anonymous, and ignore him.

The other possibility is he is a master scammer/fraudster who managed to trick some pretty smart people over a period of several years.

In which case everybody except the victims of his fraud and law enforcement working on behalf of those victims should ignore him.

So, either he was or he wasn’t. In either case, we should ignore him. I regret ever getting involved in the “who was Satoshi” game, and am going to spend my time on more fun and productive pursuits.

This whole forum is ran by backwards broke ex scammers who are slowly watching their BTC fortune die.

I’m going to continue arguing here. Going against your advice has paid off. It’s been over a year since BTC highs and there is no scaling solution that works yet. You can cheer for 20K BTC and people will need to wait days for overpriced transactions they are better off making with banks.

BSV is ready to scale, the superstore Wal-Mart has been built in the middle of the dessert and we welcome anyone. You guys call Craig and Calvin scammers yet they’ve invested 300 million into mining equipment. They are paying just about anyone to build applications on BSV. They haven’t asked for money, they are giving away money and are paying people to develop on the BSV blockchain. They are trying to stay within the legal framework. These guys are taking risks and they have balls. They don’t care about you trolls. They have money and they can bring you down.

What does BTC have? They have blockstream. A company that wants you to put YOUR Bitcoin on THEIR lightning network. This network still isn’t ready.

This is a clear divide between capitalism (BSV) and socialism (BTC). I fight for capitalism. Anyone can compete in BSV, this is what Bitcoin is, not some second layer third party. I’ll argue this everyday if I have to.

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/30/1859754/0/en/Squire-Agrees-to-Purchase-Companies-With-Cloud-Computing-Assets-Totaling-2-985-Petahash-to-Become-One-of-the-World-s-Largest-Public-Crypto-Mining-Companies.html

Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
Satoshi Nakamoto
Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:56:27 -0800


>Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
>> I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully
>> peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.
>>
>> The paper is available at:
>> http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
>
>We very, very much need such a system, but the way I understand your
>proposal, it does not seem to scale to the required size.
>
>For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have
>monetary value.  To have monetary value, they must be transferred within
>a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to
>bittorrent.
>
>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.
>


Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.  A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think.  A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.  Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. 
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Bitcoin scales, since it's inception.

BTC isn't, since it's 2017 hard fork.

I do NOT accept your bet. I thought I was clear before.