The Bitcoin whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto.

[AdrianX]

In June 2016 a GitHub change to the Original The Bitcoin White Paper was proposed.

The suggested change would support the idea that Satoshi, the anonymous author of the paper and the inventor of Bitcoin, intended to limit bitcoin transactions and support the the position that the heavily debated transaction limit can't be removed using the apolitical mechanisms described in the bitcoin white paper.

https://news.bitcoin.com/revising-satoshi-white-paper/

While the community reacted appropriately with shock to that idea, the ideas is still being perused and has not been abandoned.

Bitcoin is a decentralized censorship resistant protocol, however the control of the community discussion forums is highly centralized, one of the most high profile centers for information is bitcoin.org, bitcoin.org is controlled by 2 individuals who were entrusted with the maintenance of that site both of them are fairly anonymous, they could be one and the same.

One of the trustees is an anonymous avatar named Cobra, Cobra-Bitcoin on GitHub, and Cobra-Bitcoin on reddit. Cobra is still working on changing the bitcoin wire paper and possibly publishing it on the bitcoin.org website the home for the Original White Paper.

Today Cobra let the community know he is still working on changing the bitcoin white paper.


The Bitcoin White paper describes a system where only nodes that can show Proof of Work can write blocks to the blockchain, after describing how the network works the paper concludes: "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

The show of PoW is not democratic, it's about who has the most CPU power to process the SHA256 hashes necessary to time stamp transaction in a block that contain transactions that confirm to the consensus rules.

The White Paper reflects the behavior of the bitcoin network that how has over 8 years of empirical history. This proposed change comes at a time where bitcoin transactions confining to historic norms, are being rejected by the network because they exceed an arbitrary transaction limit.

When looking at the historic performance of the network transactions have not been limited, and when reading the white paper it is clear that a limit is not intended or necessary to validate the transactions in a block.

We have had 6 years of debate where all the objections imaginable to resolving the technical problems have been discussed and are well understood, with cooperation it can be removed with no technical risk, however malicious actors acting maliciously can introduce some risk, this risk is not insurmountable.

Censorship of the discussion is now rampant, it has been escalating over the last 2 years it is prevalent in developers forums, and other bitcoin discussion forums is keeping the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt associated with removing the transaction limit alive, censorship is being used to maximize the possible risk.

Cobra who in whole or in part controls bitcoin.org the home of the bitcoin white paper is supporting the limiting of bitcoin transaction for technical reasons without publicly providing any objectively quantified reasons his contribution, changing the bitcoin white paper

 

[AdrianX]

The paper is under the MIT license and part of the original Bitcoin project support files. The paper points to bitcoin.org, and was originally uploaded there, it's well within our right to produce an updated version that corrects the major problems. As things are right now, too many people get encouraged to read the white paper to "learn" about how Bitcoin works, and these people just come out with an incorrect interpretation of how things should be.

 

[Francis GASCHET]

So this Cobra says : you are too stupid. Don't read the white paper because you'll misinterpret it.
It's great : this is the way "religious" activists try to push all peoples of the world in ignorance and darkness : don't think; believe !
But why interpreting it ?
When I read the last 2 sentences, I don't need to interpret "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism" in order to understand that any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
Oups ! Understand ? Impossible : I'm too stupid to understand. So I can only misinterpret the sentence.
So I *guess* that it means : any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
Cobra please : is it a good interpretation ?

 

[AdrianX]

@Francis GASCHET The paper refers to all nodes as working nodes, work defined as performing PoW, however today not all nodes are working and not all nodes do PoW, most nodes today validate and relay.

You can interpret it as you have and that's my position it is referring to nodes that show PoW, however if you read it out of context it's been argued that CPU in that paragraph refers to relay nodes checking transactions.

It is almost becoming a religion, but i think it's clear no matter how you interpret that, it is not unambiguous to ask is the transaction limit a needed rule?

 

[AdrianX]

for the record just adding an update.

 

[AdrianX]

thanks @todu this is awesome. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/whitepaper

 

[79b79aa8]

"whitepaper is incorrect".

incorrect with respect to cobra's superior, completely disinterested understanding, of course. which entitles him to alter someone else's seminal, ground-breaking, revolutionary, breath-taking, widely disseminated and quoted paper.

and he is not immediately laughed out of court! you can't make this stuff up.

 

[healthyeagle]

Conclusion:
Satoshi concludes their work by drawing attention to the key features of this paper:

A system for electronic transactions without relying on 3rd party trust has been proposed.

Digital signatures provide strong controls over ownership and double-spending is prevented.

A peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work is used to create a public log which is impractical for attackers to change, provided honest nodes are in control of the system.

Nodes work with little coordination, they do not need to be identified since messages are not ever sent to a sole location.

Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at any time, provided they update their Blockchain upon re-entering the network.

Rules and incentives can be enforced using a voting system.

 

[79b79aa8]

what voting system? there is no voting system above and beyond POW.

"[Nodes] vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

 

[AdrianX]

I can't actually believe people continue to toy with the idea of changing the white paper to reflect their world view.

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1904#issuecomment-342973983

 

[79b79aa8]

did these people not go to college?
you don't get to edit someone else's released paper.
you can write a new paper, quote and give credit where appropriate, and put your name on it.
your piece then stands on its own merits.
anything else is intellectually dishonest.

 

[79b79aa8]

Here is a link to a site that keeps track of mirrors containing the original whitepaper. It also has instructions for how to extract it from the blockchain, wherein it has been hashed.

 

[Zolin]

I didn't even know some of this information that was offered in the article. As long as I've known bitcoin, and that's been for a long time, but I didn't know this for some reason. I think that it's worth sharing this information. Thank you =)))

 

[AdrianX]

the infection that never goes away.

The 10th anniversary of Bitcoin would be great time for the whitepaper to be updated and modernised, with terminology corrected, mistakes removed, and any incorrect notions or hints of miners 'voting' on changes erased. New users need an updated introduction to Bitcoin.

 

[79b79aa8]

all we'd get would be a document signed by cobra.

 

[AdrianX]

this tweet in response to a white paper takedown notice.

How funny if Cobra's going to double down on keeping the original.

 

[79b79aa8]

if he keeps the original, he's liable to copyright infringment.
but if he slightly alters and signs it, he'd be committing plagiarism.
he is however free to totally alter it, i.e., to post a paper of his on the web. i am holding my breath.