Amendments to the Bitcoin paper

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

I've been noticing that the Bitcoin paper at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is getting a lot of traffic (mainly from people searching for "bitcoin paper", or probably seeing it cited by other papers). Almost all the people reading the paper are probably reading it for the first time, and using it as a learning resource. However since the paper is so outdated, I believe it doesn't do a good job anymore of giving people a firm understanding of Bitcoin (at least the modern version). There is no mention of things like pools, and the Privacy and SPV sections could probably be updated.

The paper links to bitcoin.org, but I feel like the Bitcoin described in the paper and the Bitcoin described on bitcoin.org are starting to diverge. At some point, I think the paper will start to do more harm than good, because it tricks people into believing they understand Bitcoin. I have seen people promote toxic and crazy ideas, and then cite parts of the paper in an effort to justify it. Academics are also regularly citing the paper and basing some of their reasoning and arguments on this outdated paper.

Normally issues like this in other projects would be solved by regularly updating the learning resources, and documents, such as producing new editions or versions of the document to keep it in line with the current status of the project. I'd be interested to know the community's thoughts and opinions on this issue, since I know it's likely to be a divisive but some rational debate would be good, because it could become more of a problem in the future.

There are already a few different versions of the paper out there, so Satoshi has already set the precedent that the paper should be updated to reflect the current realities of the software. I believe the paper was always designed to be a high level overview of the current reference implementation, and that we should update it now that the paper is outdated and the reference implementation has changed significantly from 2009.

[harding]

I think the paper remains a fairly accurate high-level overview of the system, and I think many people will continue to want to read and cite the original even if an updated version were available. Also important, I think many people have linked directly to https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf because they want to link to that particular version of that paper; changing the content on them could be considered inappropriate.

The current paper does not contain a date; I would support modifying the document to include a date (perhaps based on its PDF metadata), which could help people realize that it's old and may not be representative of the current system. We could maybe make a notice to that effect explicit, but that seems ugly to me.

I would also support creating a page on this site which lists errata in the paper (such as Nakamoto saying "longest chain" rather than "chain with the most POW") as well changes to the system since the original paper. I started re-reading the paper a few minutes ago in order to inform this reply, and the main thing that seems changed so far is terminology---we have different names for many things than those Nakamoto used and we've decoupled some things that started out coupled (like mining and validation). For the most part, the paper describes the system in such abstract terms that the paper remains accurate today.

Perhaps beyond that, it would be useful to create an annotated version of the paper which can help connect its high-level overview to the details of the current implementation.

As I'm re-reading the paper, I'm making notes for a possible errata. I'll post them here in a few minutes.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

The terminology is all screwed up for sure. Someone reading that paper is going to get the impression that "nodes" are the ones that mine blocks, but when they go on other Bitcoin sites, they will get a totally different meaning for what a "node" does.

Also, I'm sure most people are linking to the paper to try to educate other users, I see it frequently that people just throw out a link to the paper to try to help a new user understand Bitcoin. Most people aren't reading the paper for its historical significance, they're doing it to learn about Bitcoin. So to me it makes sense for us to adapt the paper to be more suitable for this purpose.

By modifying the paper, I don't suggest a complete rewrite. What I mean is changing the terminology, doing minor changes such as removing Satoshi's compromised email, improving sentences, and reworking some sections to make the paper a more useful learning resource to the people reading it (otherwise people are just getting misinformed). This new version can then become the new Bitcoin paper, and we can deprecate the old one.

[luke-jr]

Sounds reasonable as long as it's clear it isn't the original paper. Maybe an updated HTML version, with a clear link to the original at the top?

[harding]

A list of errata, implementation differences, and terminology notes based on my critical re-read of the paper tonight can be found here: https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf2bb3

By modifying the paper, I don't suggest a complete rewrite. What I mean is changing the terminology, doing minor changes such as removing Satoshi's compromised email, improving sentences, and reworking some sections to make the paper a more useful learning resource to the people reading it (otherwise people are just getting misinformed). This new version can then become the new Bitcoin paper, and we can deprecate the old one.

I think the gist linked above shows that there are not too many errors or inconsistent implementation details in the paper (although I may have missed or been unaware of some). Removing the GMX address is perfectly fine to me; converting the paper to HTML sounds like a good idea to me too. Changing the terminology is a bit stickier, I think, but maybe ok. But I'm still a bit uncomfortable with making more significant changes and hosting it at the existing URL. I think an significantly updated version should get its own new URL and should thrive or die based on its own merits.

[theymos]

Interesting suggestion. The paper is definitely outdated, and I do often see people saying "just read the whitepaper!" as if the paper is still a good way to learn about Bitcoin. On the other hand, the paper is an important piece of history. It's still an impressive document, even if not the most useful nowadays, explaining most of how Bitcoin works in only a few pages.

Maybe it would be best to stick several pages of errata and explanation to the front of the PDF, but leave Satoshi's pages untouched. Having bitcoin.pdf redirect to an HTML page would also work, though then people might get annoyed if they're expecting to receive a PDF (for example, if people right click a link to the PDF and "save").

https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf2bb3

That looks pretty good, though I suspect that some other experts will have additional things to add.

Bitcoin was implemented in such a way that the amount of POW can vary between blocks, so instead of saying "the longest chain" it is more correct to say "the chain demonstrating the most POW"; this is often shortened to "strongest chain".

Bitcoin 0.1 actually did just compute the longest chain by number of blocks. Satoshi fixed this pretty early IIRC.

I'd strongly emphasize that Satoshi at this time tended to speak of nodes as if they pretty much corresponded one-to-one with miners. So when he says "node", sometimes he means "mining full node", sometimes he means "non-mining full node", and sometimes he means both. (He never means "miner without a full node", since the idea of pooled mining hadn't occurred to him.) This has been a major point of confusion for people. It is clear that Satoshi implicitly recognized the difference between miners and other full nodes; for example, from the paper's SPV section:

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes [miners] control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes [full nodes] can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network [ie. other miners]. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts [fraud proofs] from network nodes [full nodes] when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes [full nodes, not necessarily mining] for more independent security and quicker verification.

[NanoAkron]

Many dictatorships rewrite history to suit their political goals.

[illuzen]

Where are these "different versions of the whitepaper out there" that you speak of?

Why not write your own whitepaper? You seem really worried about the ignorant masses being "misinformed" by the founding document.

[ftrader]

I have seen people promote toxic and crazy ideas, and then cite parts of the paper in an effort to justify it

Tell us, which part of the paper do you want to censor in order to prevent people quoting them?

[ChainQuery]

Agree with Harding that the original link which thousands have linked to should always be the "Original Bitcoin Whitepaper" which interestingly is how it is most often linked and referred to.

Any alterations to this historic document to adapt it to what you believe it should be also ought to be clearly marked as such in any future edition.

[gpushack]

If you want to change Bitcoin's whitepaper, make an altcoin. Isn't that your beloved argument?

[Feri22]

I think there should be clearly visible what is and what is not original paper from Satoshi and the original we should never change...If anything, do edited and updated version, separated from the original whitepaper...

If you edit the original paper, people calling you names for censhorships etc would have just more fuel in the fire...

I agree there should be updated version of paper or new users, BUT only clearly explaining what paper is what and why there is a updated version, explaining there were changes along the way etc...if you want to write it, it must be with 100% transparency, 100% honesty and 100% separation from the original...

The original paper should always be on the link bitcoin.pdf

PS: Please don't change the original, at least not !NOW!, in these times of ununited community it would make things just ultra-worse...Make a separate "updated" whitepaper

[dgenr8]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be sure to point people to a more reliable source, the blockchain, where the full document is included in 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713

[btcdrak]

This is crazy. If you want to make an updated paper citing the old one sure that makes sense, but one simply does not update other people's academic work. You build upon other's work through citations.

[justfathi]

This is madness!

[Feri22]

PLEASE DON'T UPDATE the original Satoshi's work...

It would really make the things even worse

Do a separate version with citations, as btcdrak is proposing...if you touch the original whitepaper, it will divide community even more...

[MarcoPon]

Seems very silly to me. Core War for example have changed a lot in the years, but people don't try to go and mess with the original article by A.K. Dewdney.

[harding]

@theymos

I do often see people saying "just read the whitepaper!" as if the paper is still a good way to learn about Bitcoin.

I've made this recommendation myself many times, and I would like to better understand why you don't think it's a good way to learn about Bitcoin's key properties.

Maybe it would be best to stick several pages of errata and explanation to the front of the PDF, but leave Satoshi's pages untouched. Having bitcoin.pdf redirect to an HTML page would also work, though then people might get annoyed if they're expecting to receive a PDF (for example, if people right click a link to the PDF and "save").

I was thinking perhaps the best way to do it would be with sidenode-style annotations that could put the new information in close proximity to the original quotes. I've done this before for other documents in both HTML/CSS/JS and LaTeX, so that we could create both an HTML version and a PDF version.

Bitcoin 0.1 actually did just compute the longest chain by number of blocks. Satoshi fixed this pretty early IIRC.

I've heard this but I went through many of the early patches a while ago and didn't notice it. I'll have to look for it explicitly next time. I updated the gist to mention this implementation detail: https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf2bb3/revisions#diff-6f509de8a261253a0cdd48f6684c3667

I'd strongly emphasize that Satoshi at this time tended to speak of nodes as if they pretty much corresponded one-to-one with miners.

Yes. I should have addressed that better in the gist; here's an update: https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf2bb3/revisions#diff-6f509de8a261253a0cdd48f6684c3667

@snakecharmer1024

Where are these "different versions of the whitepaper out there" that you speak of?

Gwern has an earlier version here: http://www.gwern.net/docs/20081003-nakamoto-bitcoindraft.pdf with details about it here: http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto

In that post, he also describes a pre-publication version sent to Wei Dai from before when Nakamoto started using the name Bitcoin (but nobody has provided that document for public consumption). I think there might also be a fourth version available somewhere.

[molecular]

This goes too far. Changing the paper is out of the question. To preserve history, bitcoin TX 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713 has the content of bitcoin.pdf, sha256 b1674191a88ec5cdd733e4240a81803105dc412d6c6708d53ab94fc248f4f553

[nopara73]

Nobody is talking about changing the whitepaper, it is creating an up-to-date version of it for educational purposes.
The original version could stay at the same link, but there could be an other link that refers to the up-to-date one, so people will have a choice.
I think even the conspiracy theorist /r/btc folks would be ok with that.

[g4p]

I support you asking this question - sometimes people put Satoshi on a pedestal or place him and his works as untouchable icons and that is not productive or rational. The idea is important, not the man or his code or his words, they serve the idea not the other way around.

Satoshi himself built on the works of others, who built on the works of others, let's not stop that progress. Naturally, we should never delete the history of the original and respect each iteration but we should not be afraid to keep improving upon the ideal.

[fraggle222]

If you think the paper is out of date, then just write your own damn paper,
with your own name on it, and post it to the world as the definitive guide.
The world will judge.

Altering an important historical, academic document like the whitepaper is
just god awful.

[HostFat]

I think that Blockstream_network.pdf is a good name.

[nopara73]

I repeat myself: Nobody is talking about changing the whitepaper.
It is not about altering it, then publishing it in the name of Satoshi Nakamoto, sign it with his PGP and force every website that is hosting the original whitepaper to change it.
This is silly, trying to create the impression of this is the case is also silly and unproductive.

[maddenw]

NACK. That's not your decision to make. Go start an alt coin.

[molecular]

Ok, I accept that noone wants to change the original paper and I calmed down considerably due to that.

However, I also think the paper should not be amended and there should not be other versions of the "bitcoin paper" created for any purpose, neither educational nor "to save the children".

There are plenty of educational resources on bitcoin out there, but of course I don't object to creating more. Just don't call them "updated bitcoin paper" or anything like that, please.

[molecular]

This is silly, trying to create the impression of this is the case is also silly and unproductive.

The title of this issue (combined with other factors) is what creates that impression, not the supposed silliness of the reader.

Change the title to "create more educational material on bitcoin" and you wont face such opposition.

[nopara73]

I see. I personally don't really feel a great need of updating it, since whoever goes to this lenght understands the purpose of a whitepaper is to kick off a project. That being said I could've use some comments to understand what applies and what doesn't anymore when I first read it.
I just think it is very toxic to crash this idea altogether because of demonization of core. We might miss some interesting insights among the comments those are actually constructive to the conversation.

[nopara73]

The title of this issue (combined with other factors) is what creates that impression, not the supposed silliness of the reader.

Fair point. I second to recommend changing the title.

[michaelcippolito]

NACK.

I feel that changing, in any way, the file located at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf would represent a highly negative example of historical revisionism. Even if it is not a fully accurate description of Bitcoin as Bitcoin currently exists, the white paper documents Satoshi's original intent for Bitcoin and overall technical concepts.

Please do not change, the file located at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf in any way.

If anything, a wiki could be used or updated technical papers could be written and a page could be dedicated to all of this information, including Satoshi's original white paper and any other technical papers to come after.

[michaelcippolito]

At the time of this posting, the SHA256 sum of the file located at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is

b1674191a88ec5cdd733e4240a81803105dc412d6c6708d53ab94fc248f4f553

[patobrien]

NACK.

People understand that the Bitcoin Whitepaper was an early explanation that outlines a vision for Bitcoin that should be adhered to.

Specifically, the first sentence:

"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."

What this means is that Bitcoin should scale on-chain without forcing new users to go through some 2nd-layer middle-man. Bitcoin needs to remain peer-to-peer.

[droplister]

NACK - This is like 1984's memory hole.

Write something else published somewhere else.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

I'm going to ignore most of the trolling from /r/btc, and just refer to facts and reality, instead of emotions.

Firstly, the Bitcoin whitepaper is part of the Bitcoin software project. It always has been. Here you can see bitcoin.pdf in the original Sourceforge project list of files; http://web.archive.org/web/20091127010808/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/. And here you can see all the files in this project are all under the MIT licence http://web.archive.org/web/20091128211305/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/develop. If Satoshi did not want the whitepaper updated at some point in the future, he wouldn't have given it to us under the MIT license.

Secondly, it's pretty obvious that the current whitepaper uses incorrect terminology and has many things wrong with it. The paper was clearly always meant to be a learning resource regarding the Bitcoin software, but currently it doesn't do a very good job at that. Thousands of people are reading the paper each month, and they're getting misinformed. For example, even parts of the abstract are incorrect, it states: "The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power". But Bitcoin doesn't care about the "longest chain", it should read "The longest valid chain".

Like how main.cpp has been changed over time, so should bitcoin.pdf so it continues to be a useful part of the Bitcoin software project. This document was always supposed to be a learning resource. If you support changing Satoshi's code, then you should also support making changes to bitcoin.pdf, because both main.cpp and bitcoin.pdf are files belonging to the same project left to the community by Satoshi. I know this discussion is divisive, but please try to be respectful and logicial, instead of treating Satoshi like a God and this paper like the Bible. Users will always be able to find the original paper anyway, just like people are still able to download very old versions of Bitcoin.

[droplister]

That URL gets a lot of traffic because people are linking to and seeking the whitepaper. You would be un-doing and de-contextualizing A LOT of citations.

The whitepaper isn't a constitution or living document. It's a historical and published paper. Leave it be.

There is plenty of updated information online. You are only considering this due to your privileged position to redirect those visitors. Normal people just make a medium post.

If you can create a better explanation, go ahead. It won't be a whitepaper.

How about bitcoin.org/latest.pdf and you explicitly create that as an updated and frequently changed up-to-date resource.

No one's trolling you. You just don't understand academic white papers.

[droplister]

Oh, and this is a bike shed we don't need. Thanks.

[ftrader]

@fluffypony :
Not sure that's a good idea - imo showing totally different content depending on user agent (and I don't mean tailoring to fit the client's abilities) strays a little too far from the intent.
I would like to be able to curl or wget some contents and receive pretty much what a browser would get, though perhaps presented differently, but not something completely different.

"User agent sniffing is now considered poor practice" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent

[jl2012]

NACK. People use that particular link to cite that particular version of the paper. Do whatever update you want with any other link.

[FeltPen]

You would need to take Satoshi's name off of the document or add new authors to the byline - credit for any changes to the paper shouldn't be attributed solely to Satoshi unless he's actively involved in that corresponding round of editing and drafting.

[btcdrak]

If you support changing Satoshi's code, then you should also support making changes to bitcoin.pdf, because both main.cpp and bitcoin.pdf are files belonging to the same project left to the community by Satoshi.

@Cobra-Bitcoin The white paper is not a reference specification for the protocol which should be updated according to the code. That is why we have BIPs, to document protocol changes.

You could write a new high level overview of Bitcoin with citing the original paper and various other sources to back up your findings and publish that. Some have suggested redirecting bitcoin.pdf to a landing page that has the original white paper and other resources and citations like a supplimental document/errata. or even annotated version. That might also be controversial, but it will be a lot less controversial than outright changing Satoshi's paper.

I think you're also stretching the intent of the MIT license: this is open source and even most BIPs have permissive licenses OSS licenses, or public domain. This is done so that people are free to adapt the work. While the MIT license does give you legal permission to edit the document it would be clearly controversial to change the document which is directly linked to as "the original Bitcoin white paper by Satoshi" (and things to that effect).

[petertodd]

NACK changing /bitcoin.pdf to an edited paper, echoing @btcdrak's arguments.

Replacing /bitcoin.pdf with a landing page that in turn links to the multiple versions known of Satoshi's bitcoin.pdf paper, along with an explanation of the historical context and what's changed since, could however be a reasonable idea if done well.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

"The whitepaper isn't a constitution or living document. It's a historical and published paper. Leave it be."

@droplister What are you talking about? I just showed you that it's always been part of the Bitcoin software project, and that Satoshi licensed it under MIT; you know, the license that states "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge". The bitcoin paper is an associated documentation file, and therefore part of the Bitcoin software, it's not an academic paper.

Nobody is suggesting removing the paper's historical significance, because people will always be able to find the original. But this is a discussion focused on how to improve the current paper so new Bitcoin users don't get misinformed. The discussion was actually going well, until /r/btc users started to ruining the discussion with FUD.

[FeltPen]

CobraBitcoin - You say "people will always be able to find the original." Would the original be available and easily findable on the site under your proposal?

[petertodd]

NACK changing /bitcoin.pdf to an edited paper, echoing @btcdrak's arguments.

Replacing /bitcoin.pdf with a landing page that in turn links to the multiple versions known of Satoshi's bitcoin.pdf paper, along with an explanation of the historical context and what's changed since, could however be a reasonable idea if done well.

[btcdrak]

The discussion was actually going well, until /r/btc users started to ruining the discussion with FUD.

I think dismissing dissent as r/btc users' FUD is insulting. Neither @jl2012, @petertodd or myself are from r/btc (we are regular contributors to Bitcoin Core) but we also diagree. I see several dissenting comments from r/bitcoin users too. Bringing "partisanship" into the equation is just a distraction.

I implore you to rethink this.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

CobraBitcoin - You say "people will always be able to find the original." Would the original be available and easily findable on the site under your proposal?

@FeltPen Of course. When a user visits the paper, they would get a modern up to date edition, but there would be a banner above it that would point to the older version. Users that want the historical context will obviously visit the old version, but most users that just want to figure out what Bitcoin is will be better served by the amended version and will use this.

[harding]

Related to @btcdrak and @petertodd mentions of a landing page for the paper, Bitcoin.org already has that: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper (as well as translated versions of that page). Almost all links on Bitcoin.org point to that page (or the language-appropriate version) rather than directly to the PDF file.

It would be easy to extend that page with links to other resources, such as an updated page/PDF using modern terminology and with corrections/additional details.

[FeltPen]

@Cobra-Bitcoin - Thanks for the reply. I think the heart of the issue is author attribution - Satoshi can't get credit for the additions or edits unless he's involved in the process. The precedent for this has been set by the Core devs on the copyright statement in the code repository. What's your position here?

[ftrader]

Quite honestly it sounds as if @Cobra-Bitcoin would like the whitepaper to be a living specification document. It's not clear at all to me that Satoshi intended this, otherwise he would have written at least a rudimentary specification document (with a version number!) instead of the informal high-level description with emphasis on rationale.

[franckuestein]

NACK.
I second what other people said against this proposal.

If you want to publish new academic work or informative paper about Bitcoin just create a new one completely unlinked to the original Bitcoin whitepaper and don't change bitcoin.pdf to an edited one.

[Lethos84]

NACK. Leave his original work alone.

If you want to write your own paper, no one is stopping you, just don't remove or change one of the biggest part of Bitcoin History.

[andyrowe]

NACK

It's a scientific paper signed by another person, not a wiki entry.

[seandotau]

It's a snapshot of history and should be left as is.

[VincentPiper]

NACK

Satoshi's whitepaper was an answer to a puzzle at that time.

If that answer was not perfect and thus Bitcoin has changed, evolved, or updated to fix things that which was not anticipated by Satoshi, that does not mean we should modify his paper now to "correct" that original answer. That just means an amendment document should be drafted and be made available for people to read with the Satoshi Whitepaper, for the most updated (2016) understanding of Bitcoin.

[Azulan]

Bitcoin.org is not a reliable source of Bitcoin information.

[luke-jr]

@andyrowe commented 3 hours ago

It's a scientific paper signed by another person, not a wiki entry.

Hmm, that's actually a good idea: if @Cobra-Bitcoin wants to go ahead with an updated copy, import the PDF text to the Bitcoin Wiki (maybe call it "Bitcoin Whitepaper (Updated)") and modify it there. Then it's clear it's updated, edited by third parties, and other people can work to improve its clarify as well.

[venzen]

As per @btcdrak and @petertodd and others' comments: a whitepaper is an academic publication that cannot be revised or edited on the author's behalf. Even the original author cannot do that and must publish a separate addendum to the original if there are changes or updates.

It's disappointing to see how many here are unaware of this established convention.

Changing Satoshi's whitepaper is not a credible option. Doing so in the name of "user education" will make this website a laughing stock. Adding educational resources to bitcoin.org is the way to go. If a new user is interested in learning about Bitcoin they must use their left mouse button and do their research.

[FeltPen]

@Cobra-Bitcoin @luke-jr

Luke is on the right track. Consider putting this proposal up for review on the developer list serv or the core repository on github since the whitepaper should be something that reflects the system that's being developed by the developers - the two should not be out of sync (or more out of sync than they already are).

[matachi]

It would be highly unethical of you to edit an already published academic paper. If you want to make changes, you have to write a new paper under your own name. In your own paper, you are free to cite Satoshi's paper and explain any details in greater detail.

If you go through with this proposal, you will cause great damage to the credibility of Bitcoin within the scientific community. That would make it apparent that you are not aware of how research is done properly.

I suggest that you close this issue before you make a complete fool of yourself.

[gmaxwell]

@matachi I think you might have commented without reading everything there, Cobra wrote "When a user visits the paper, they would get a modern up to date edition, but there would be a banner above it that would point to the older version."-- which, sure, is also debatable but is entirely unlike what you're making out his proposal to be.

The issues Cobra listed are real ones-- for example, I recently dealt with someone who argued that the addition of smart contracts to Bitcoin was a conspiracy to undermine the system by Blockstream 0_o ... they had no idea script was in Bitcoin since day one, because it's one of the many parts of the system not mentioned in the whitepaper. The whitepaper is a great document but some of the ways that it is incomplete lead to material misunderstandings of the actual system that was released. So I think thats a legit concern, and there are probably many different ways to address it.

In any case, no one is going to do anything misleading or deceptive with the whitepaper, nor would it really be possible for them to do so even if they tried. The various early versions of the whitepaper are super highly replicated all over the place and no one is going trick anyone about them. I do wonder why the same ire isn't directed at the various "amended" and "annotated" versions that people keep circulating around, some are very low quality.

Going a bit meta-- I'm very concerned by this thread. The fact that cobra can't make a suggestion about fixing a real problem without a committee to make sure no element of his suggestion is tone deaf in some way or another, because the media is going to go and run a story with outright fabrications on account of it, and direct in a mob of poorly informed angry comments... that is an outright assault on open development: It undermines cooperation and collaboration and will retard useful progress, peer review, and drive people into working in private channels. This would be a terrible outcome and everyone should be vigilant to resist it.

[oakpacific]

I think Ethereum's 'yellow paper' approach to write another more complete, mathematical and technical document expanding on the white paper, despite their silly terminology, may have some merits to it.

[surg0r]

Going a bit meta-- I'm very concerned by this thread. The fact that cobra can't make a suggestion about fixing a real problem without a committee to make sure no element of his suggestion is tone deaf in some way or another, because the media is going to go and run a story with outright fabrications on account of it, and direct in a mob of poorly informed angry comments... that is an outright assault on open development: It undermines cooperation and collaboration and will retard useful progress, peer review, and drive people into working in private channels. This would be a terrible outcome and everyone should be vigilant to resist it.

It isn't a real problem.

It is simply a matter of you and the small clique of coders left within the Core project trying to steer bitcoin away from the original ideas contained within the title and abstract of the paper - bitcoin : a peer to peer electronic cash system.

Given you are working for a startup designing off chain payment solutions which aim to profit by acting as a middleman between users you are the antithesis of bitcoin.

[thelostt]

@Cobra-Bitcoin

Don't touch the original file (by that I mean where the white-paper is located/linked to). Rather, make the changes you believe to be important, explicitly show it's you who is altering it and that the original white-paper remains intact (provide a link to it), declaring that your new version is not part of Satoshi's work, but rather an updated one for the current Bitcoin, link this new white-paper on bitcoin.org (with a new URL, do not substitute the older one). That way, you will not screw those linking to the original white-paper for quoting/citation, and still have an updated version, corresponding to the current software.

At least that's how I think it should go.

[illuzen]

Whether or not this discussion turns out to be a tempest in a teapot, I urge @Cobra-Bitcoin to try to understand why people are so touchy about it. There is a tremendous amount at stake in the Bitcoin project and some very powerful vested interests would like to see it fail or subverted.

On the other hand, you knew it was going to be divisive and you did it anyway. The core issue here is the struggle to define what is Bitcoin. Lot's of people have different ideas and your "educational" material could be seen as a sort of "political re-education". Don't just dismiss these issues.

[matachi]

@gmaxwell I understand your concerns, and I do not consider it a problem if you write a paper that explains the various facets of Bitcoin more thoroughly with an up-to-date terminology.

However, the way you write a scientific paper isn't by plagiarizing somebody else's work, nor by attributing your changes to somebody else's name. Doing so would be unethical. It does not matter if your intentions are good and the modifications are small. When you do your first modification to Satoshi's paper, it stops being his work, and it becomes an improperly cited and plagiarized paper that you would need to sign with your own name. You cannot make amendments to Satoshi's paper while still claiming him to be its sole author, since you have not gotten his permission to do the amendments on his behalf.

The proper way to deal with this issue would be to write a new paper where you put your own names as its authors. In your new paper, you are free to cite Satoshi's paper, and you are also free to present any new facts and clarifications. You can then refer people to this new paper and tell them that you believe this to be a better source of information.

But once again, I want to underscore that you cannot make modifications to Satoshi's paper while still claiming him to be its author. I understand that the intention is to help the site's visitors. However, a solution cannot be scientific misconduct that would hurt the scientific integrity of Bitcoin.

[Ashaman-]

NACK

[gmaxwell]

@matachi Stop. Your response keeps continually points a finger at me: "your" "you" "you" "your" "your" "you" "your" "you" "your" "You" "you" "you" "your" "your" "you" "you" "You" "you" "you".

Lets make this completely clear-- I am not doing any of those things or, really, anything at all here. My only involvement was to comment that Cobra is citing some real issues, suggesting that people are not reading what he actually suggested and are over-reacting, and pointing out that the overreaction is harmful to public discourse. Your suggestions otherwise-- accusing me of plagiarism and fraud-- are unethical and offensive. In fact, you were involved with this proposal before I was.

I want to underscore that you cannot make modifications to Satoshi's paper while still claiming him to be its author

Not a single person here has proposed doing that as far as I can tell.

And yet many parties are distributing modified versions of the whitepaper (including companies like coinbase, e.g. http://genius.com/Satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin-a-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash-system-annotated ) and I can find no evidence of you ever complaining to any of them. Why is that?

[HostFat]

@gmaxwell

@Cobra-Bitcoin @theymos and others of the crew did and are doing by mostly a year a precise and accurate job of censuring and changing the history by hiding opinions/messages (here on github and else where)

So, what do you expect?

If a psychopath killer will ask for a knife only for cutting an apple, it isn't strange that most people will think that it isn't a good idea. (while yes, "cutting an apple" isn't something bad...)

The trust is lost @gmaxwell.

This isn't an "assault on open development", this escalation is directed to some precise people.

EDIT:
The comma wasn't clear.

[creationlayer]

I think it would be best to propose a completed document, and keep the original in plain sight. If the additions have good approval and seems to clear up information then you could link it alongside the previous version. The original proposal is too vague for folks to provide helpful feedback. Maybe you could solve this by not considering it a white paper, and adapting it into one of the other many technical style documents.

[luke-jr]

1. The Bitcoin paper is not an academic/scientific paper.
2. Cobra never suggested (in what I read) any dishonesty with his revisions; I assume he would notate that his new version has been modified since the original.

[gmaxwell]

@HostFat I have no access here, and AFAICT Theymos and Cobra aren't paying attention (or even awake) right now.

[HostFat]

@gmaxwell it's an ongoing problem that you know and directly help your company, so hiding behind a finger will not help.

Back on topic, if Blockstream_network.pdf is too much..., BitcoinCore.pdf is even a good choice that I'm sure many will agree.

But then I'm not sure why it isn't good enough to simply maintening updated https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-documentation

[gmaxwell]

@HostFat "it's an ongoing problem that you know and directly help your company," What are you talking about?

[illuzen]

The Bitcoin paper is not an academic/scientific paper.
@luke-jr What would you call it then, a design document?

And how many people who do dishonest things explicitly propose doing something dishonest? Can you really not see why people are upset about this?

[luke-jr]

"Design document" sounds about right.

@Cobra-Bitcoin has never done anything I am aware of that would suggest he is a dishonest person either.

[Feri22]

@gmaxwell ...don't feed the trolls,..it doesn't matter what your answer will be, for some people, you will always be the bad, evil guy, no matter what...Just wanted to say, there are still people in BTC left who appreciate your work..."Comment wars" are mostly waste of dev's time...

[benjyz]

"There are already a few different versions of the paper out there," I don't think that is true. As far as I'm aware there is only 1 version of the document. I'm keeping an archive on github of various source code versions [1]. original paper has md5sum d56d71ecadf2137be09d8b1d35c6c042 [2]. Disagree with the notion that the Bitcoin paper misleads people. In fact I find the exact opposite to be true: many folklore opinions are misguided and the original paper (and source) is still best reference to understand the architecture and idea.

[1] https://github.com/benjyz/bitcoinArchive
[2] https://github.com/benjyz/bitcoinArchive/blob/master/bitcoin.pdf

[gmaxwell]

FWIW, the ninja-commit that corrected the "longest chain" design flaw to "most work" was bitcoin/bitcoin@40cd036#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420

[harding]

@gmaxwell wow, thanks! (I can see why I missed that when I was skimming diffs.)

[jbenet]

There are two desires here:

• (a) some want to update a well known, widely linked named entrypoint to an accurate description of the Bitcoin system.
• (b) some want to keep a permanent identifier to the original paper document, exactly as published by Satoshi.

Both desires are legitimate, and important. Many visitors to the link expect an accurate -- and more importantly, current -- paper level description of the system. And many visitors expect to find the exact same document they read in the past and they cited in other media.

Leaving my own views out of this (which is that the content of links like this shouldn't change), the issues above don't actually have to clash on the same link. With two different links, they don't have to clash at all.

1. Let's get a proper permanent identifier to the paper (see the end), and use that in citations. It SHOULD BE secure and publicly-verifiable, so it has to change anyway (hash links for a content-addressed, immutable version).
2. "https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" is a dynamic name subject to the desires of bitcoin.org and other DNS authorities, and it cannot be expected to be perfectly immutable. More over, since so many people and places link to it as "THE canonical overview of what bitcoin is", it would be great to make sure this can refer people to the most up-to-date version of the paper.
   • A banner as @gmaxwell describes would work perfectly, i think.
   • Maybe only show it for humans/browsers, but not redirect for tools (like curl, wget) which may require the original pdf byte for byte.

---

the bigger problem

For me, this summons up a much broader issue -- the content of the link "https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" can be changed by:

• ICANN,
• .org TLD,
• the bitcoin.org registrar,
• the domain owner,
• the CA roots,
• many other CAs,
• bitcoin.org's datacenter/host(s) (whatever A records point to, eg Black Lotus Communications)
• the bitcoin.org webserver(s),
• the bitcoin.org webmasters,
• governments,
• and more...

There are so many parties being trusted along the way! (this doesn't even count the devs here, or your browsers). The URL https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is a name under the authority "bitcoin.org" (and other broader authorities).

Based on how almost all HTTP URLs work and most user expectations about those, "https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" is not at all guaranteed to point to the exact same thing for ever. The web was designed to be dynamic. Linking to it expecting immutability is a mistake.

---

hash links (authenticated, immutable)

Fidelity to the original paper and to the nature of Bitcoin (authenticated data structure, merkle links, public verifiability, peer-to-peer, self-reliance, ...) demands a different address, a hash-linked address. This can be done with IPFS, Git, BitTorrent, Tahoe-LAFS, and more. It is in Bitcoin's ethos that you should be able to link to Satoshi's original paper and never take anyone's word for it. And the best way to do that is with a hash link.

Here is the permanent IPFS path to Satoshi's original paper:

• /ipfs/QmTzD4g5FFgnBjVex3GtGfJ9R3nb4nebaAJXQCnYyfffxN/bitcoin.pdf

You can use the path with IPFS tools:

• ipfs get /ipfs/QmTzD4g5FFgnBjVex3GtGfJ9R3nb4nebaAJXQCnYyfffxN/bitcoin.pdf
  Trust model: your ipfs implementation, only. That's it! Hash has to match to externalize.
• ipfs pin add -r QmTzD4g5FFgnBjVex3GtGfJ9R3nb4nebaAJXQCnYyfffxN
  Pin it to replicate it with your node.

Or right in your browsers, with these URI prefixes:

• https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmTzD4g5FFgnBjVex3GtGfJ9R3nb4nebaAJXQCnYyfffxN/bitcoin.pdf -- Global http-to-ipfs gateway url, just for compatibility. Trust model: all the DNS nonsense again, including us (owners of ipfs.io). It is encouraged to run your own gateway, and remap ipfs.io via hosts file to it, to avoid trusting us and the DNS orgs at all.
• http://localhost:8080/ipfs/QmTzD4g5FFgnBjVex3GtGfJ9R3nb4nebaAJXQCnYyfffxN/bitcoin.pdf
  Local http-to-ipfs gateway if you have one running in port :8080. Trust model: your browser, your ipfs implementation. Nothing else.
• fs:/ipfs/QmTzD4g5FFgnBjVex3GtGfJ9R3nb4nebaAJXQCnYyfffxN/bitcoin.pdf
  Proper uri (this ff ext can resolve it, we'll work on getting it into stock browsers)

And hey, you can use these URIs in research paper citations, as they're immutable.

---

Hopefully the comments of an "immutable links (almost) everywhere pls! \o/" purist like myself can help find closure here. I think there are very legitimate good intentions on both approaches, and a clean way out, as I mentioned above. To avoid sidetracking this issue, I most likely will not respond after this one post.

[Rudd-O]

The concept of "amending a paper" written by a first party author by way of a third-party author mangling is absurd, and it is a crime in quite a few jurisdictions.

Morally, I say don't lie to people by mangling the original writeup. It exists where it exists for a reason. Altering the original paper to "update it" is a perversion of the very idea of a published paper. If you want it to be updated, talk to Satoshi. He can publish a second version.

In the meantime, publish an updated paper yourself. Under your name.

Whoever is distributing forged versions of the paper should be prosecuted for plagiarism.

[gmaxwell]

@Rudd-O ludicrous hyperbole like saying making an accurately credited update to a MIT licensed document (read the actual thread, since NO ONE suggested anything deceptive) is a "crime" is toxic garbage which does nothing but destroys your own reputation. Please take it elsewhere.

Treating people like shit like this will guarantee that none of us get asked for input in future activities.

[Rudd-O]

Maxwell, I never asked for your permission to give my input, and you never asked me for my input either. I don't need your permission or your acquiescence to voice my concerns. I give my input because it's true and because this travesty is open to being commented upon, not because you ask me for it. Check the reactions on posts in favor of the proposed forgery, to gauge how people feel about the idea of rewriting scholarly citations.

Note that "like shit like this" is not even grammatically correct, and nobody is being treated "like shit" to begin with. "Toxic garbage" is not an argument — we're here to discuss whether producing a forgery based on Satoshi's work is proper, not to bicker about your opinions.

[Rudd-O]

A good comment that refers to the immorality of what is being proposed in this thread:

---

This is what happens when people want to rewrite history, and you can already see in their few comments how slippery the slope is, first it's to change the date, then it's to change the terms, then it's to replace the paper with a html version. And every one of them always tries to justify it with excuses. Every manoeuvre is carefully geared to hide/bury the original vision bit by bit, until the original is unrecognisable, and can disappear altogether. And all conducted under the guise of good intentions, yet nothing can be further from the truth.

This is what it looks like when cowards try to censor in broad daylight when overt blanket censorship is too controversial.

Edit: Just to be clear bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf harkens back to Satoshi's very first release http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html . It is incredibly unethical to replace that url's original contents, just like it would be unethical to edit the contents of irc logs or email conversations "for users' convenience", this material that Satoshi created should remain untouched and in an archived state as it's history is orders of magnitude more important than "clarity". Doing so is tantamount to literally rewriting history, as now all of Satoshi's posts now points to a url's contents that was never his. This isn't about properly informing users, or keeping users up to date, they could do that effortlessly by simply creating a new page on the bitcoin.org site, this is about misleading and burying the truth about Bitcoin's history, and Satoshi's original intentions.

---

Let's quit the 1984 bullshit and move on, shall we?

[Rudd-O]

Diff from the earlier to the later paper, containing no forgeries and before this travesty was proposed:

https://www.diffchecker.com/9ljs5wwd

[gmaxwell]

@Rudd-O (and hostfat, with the passive-agressive one up)

I'm not going to sit quietly while pseudonymous armchair provocateurs show up and treat actual contributors poorly and destroy any prospect of future public collaboration. Your behavior is here is abusive and immoral and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Bitcoin.org is a privately owned website, created by Bitcoin's creator and directly handed over to its current operators. Unlike, say, Bitcoin.com it makes a serious effort to solicit public involvement and input., and it attempts to be operated for the public benefit rather than just to make a profit. It's operators are kind enough to solicit input.

In this case, Cobra pointed out that many people land on the Bitcoin whitepaper page after searching "bitcoin paper". Presumably, some of these people are just looking for a good background on Bitcoin, and for this purpose they are not that well served by the whitepaper as of its last update because it contains some inaccuracies (and a few things that eight more years of experience has taught us are easily misunderstood). He suggested putting up an updated version that fixes these issues along with a banner on it that its been updated and a link to the historic version (it could even link to all the prior versions too).

This might be a good idea, it might be a bad idea. His description might have been okay or foolishly worded... Maybe-- and most likely-- it'll ultimately be a lark that goes nowhere. But whatever it is-- it's something worth discussing: Cobra pointed to some undeniable problems, and many people have had constructive input on how best to address them. For all anyone knows it simply would have been addressed with a separate page. But these kinds of discussions can't and won't happen if simply opening a discussion summons abuse, with hysterical allegations of fraud and crime, with conspiracy theories, false accusations, and flooding.

If someone can't make a proposal and get some polite thoughts in reply and allow collaborators to refine their thinking without getting a media storm and a witch hunt then the only rational step for them in the future will be to stop asking, and just do what they think is best without public input.

Responses like yours are an assault on open collaboration, they will destroy my future ability to provide input on matters that matter to me and will destroy my freedom to safely request input from others. And I won't stand for it. You don't need my permission to post on your own pages, but when you wade into a community that I'm a part of and start mistreating people and acting in a way which will scare people off from speaking freely with implicit threats of witch hunts or prosecution you can bet I'm going to speak up against you.

Here you wax on about censorship yet you see fit to make demands not just on what someone publishes on their own website, but respond with online violence to people who are simply discussing some things you don't like, in their own space. You go on to allege some long list of crimes, that no one has suggested performing, inditing Cobra for acts that exist only in your misconduct laden imagination. It's despicable.

[radicalrafi]

It's not censorship or violence and hiding behind these two terms won't help you it's the bitcoin paper is for Bitcoin what the declaration of independance is for the US the core,base of Bitcoin & Blockchain.How the hell you dare to say such a thing,trying to destroy bitcoin with your Blockstream revolutionary BS . People like you are the cause of the 2008 Crisis people who sell their ass for a buck..and to quote one of the greatest rappers "فطريق صرف مشحال من واحد ولا كلخروف "

[TheRealMage]

@Cobra-Bitcoin

I'm somewhat confused at the proposal here, and based off of a lot of comments there are either assumptions or preconceived notions of this proposition.

Is the issue that of the paper itself? Or is it of the location of the white paper (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)?

If the issue is the former, might I recommend creating an updated white paper either with notes embedded within the original or creating a new paper with new authors and referencing Satoshi's work? You can list the new paper on the landing page https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper next to the original and the translated versions.

If its the later, I'm not sure how I personally feel about this. I can understand the position of many here on both sides of the isle. My major concern would be as someone else has mentioned the massive amounts of links to that directly.

@luke-jr
You are correct that this may not be considered an academic paper because it wasn't peer reviewed. It is however regarded as a whitepaper and a piece of history (As a matter of fact, I googled "historic whitepapers" and Satoshi's paper was the third result.). Whitepapers (as well as academic papers) should never be modified from its original content, only built upon.

@gmaxwell
The elephant in the room (well, not so much the elephant since its fairly apparent from underlying emotions here already) is that there is a community perception that one company has been bought out by larger players in which the underlying ethos of Bitcoin was released against.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that its in a sad state of affairs in which public discussions can not be engaged without vitriol spewing forth from emotions. Public discussion should never be controlled or hijacked by individuals with an agenda. With that said, there are many public figures within this discussion that has contributed to this sentiment. I have feelings on many things as well, and am not shy of sharing them. But at that same point in time I recognize that I am both a public figure and that there needs to be an engagement of dialog between two parties (not saying this just for you, this goes for others here as well that are slamming you). One of the largest issues I have seen from people in the upper echelons in Bitcoin is the feeling that those at the top "know better" yet fail to explain why, or they lack the proper communication skills to do so (which is fine, I often tell people I didn't become an engineer in order to spell correctly. Not everyone has to master all skills and can admit maybe they dont have the proper skillset at times when needed)

I'm not posting this at all to discredit anyone here at all. Merely pointing out the perceptions and how they came to be so hopefully at some point in time we can all move on at some point in time.

@Cobra-Bitcoin

Back at you again, because of the biases of the community at this time, I highly suggest you close this topic and revisit it when there isn't so much hatred on both sides.

EDIT: Typos

[gmaxwell]

@TheRealMage "Both sides of the isle"?

Let me make this completely clear.
My only involvement here has been to complain about the abusive and
sometimes dishonest conduct by some of the posters above, and some
in the media.

I found out about this thread after I woke up and got a notice
from a Reddit moderator that they needed me to step up and correct
a clearly fraudulent claim that my company was somehow involved in
Cobra's proposal. To be clear, Blockstream has no involvement with Cobra or his suggestion..

I think strawman versions of what Cobra was suggesting are clearly
dumb, and that steelman versions are probably useful. But I don't
much care, and I haven't been commenting on that beyond saying that he should have the right to make a proposal in his own github and receive input without receiving abuse.

My remarks are urging caution because the abusive, dishonest, and
threatening response will have a chilling effect against free and
open communication in the future. That's it.

"there are many public figures within this discussion"; And who-- precisely-- are you referring to here? It's not me or my proposal people are arguing with. (And, I am hardly a public figure ... in spite of Mike Hearn's overwrought misrepresentations about Bitcoin in an effort to portray me as in charge of Bitcoin in order to cause legal problems for me)

If there were some simple A vs B thing that were being disputed
then there would be no dispute: Cobra has the ability to make
whatever changes he wants to make without any of our approval.

This sounds an awful like like a coy way of saying that abusive conduct is okay. But it also misses the point of my argument: You can justify the abusiveness however you want, the but fact remains that if people find these venues too abusive they will simply stop using them. Each one of you has a choice, you can call out the abuse and make sure contributors (including whatever people you imagine to be "public figures") feel that they can comfortable public discussion about some speculative ideas, or you can pick up stones yourself, or turn away when others do and we can all lose access to these discussions.

If the issue is the former, might I recommend creating an updated white paper either with notes embedded within the original or creating a new paper with new authors and referencing Satoshi's work? You can list the new paper on the landing page https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper next to the original and the translated versions.

AFAICT that was is all in the space of what was being proposed above. Since you're now saying similar stuff, be prepared to be on the receiving end of the abuse too, I guess. :-/

I'm somewhat confused at the proposal here,

That;s because there wasn't a concrete proposal here, there was just an open discussion. Or rather, an attempt at one that has been utterly submarined.

Back at you again, because of the biases of the community at this time, I highly suggest you close this topic and revisit it when there isn't so much hated on both sides.

Will you make a personal commitment to stand up against claims of censorship if this thread is closed?

Do you think it's appropriate that a couple people raiding another community and hurling abuse and untrue claims can shut down any open discussion and force it behind closed doors? For people like Cobra going dark would no doubt save a lot of time and energy but do you think that its in the public interest that things be done this way?

@Feri22 Believe it or not, I'd love to ignore the trolling. But the trolls present an utterly distorted reality as the accepted truth... it may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to everyone. I found that if I say nothing, then the most outrageously untrue claims show up presented in the New York Times presented as the accepted truth. :(

[TheRealMage]

@gmaxwell

My remarks are urging caution because the abusive, dishonest, and
threatening response will have a chilling effect against free and
open communication in the future. That's it.

I agree with you, I was hoping that it was clear in my post as such! I'm sorry you took it as another way. Hatred and vitriol should never be utilized in a public discussion where ones intentions are to make improvements. Abusive content is also never ok, but my comment was essentially stating that "as public figures" its comes with the territory.

"there are many public figures within this discussion"; And who-- precisely-- are you referring to here? It's not me or my proposal people are arguing with. (And, I am hardly a public figure ... in spite of Mike Hearn's overwrought misrepresentations about Bitcoin in an effort to portray me as in charge of Bitcoin in order to cause legal problems for me)

Literally everyone involved in Blockstream, Bitcoin core (former and current to include BitcoinXT), moderators of forums and reddit, etc. This isnt inclusive to just you at all. Unfortunately you seem to take the brunt of accusations. And yes you are very much a public figure :).

This sounds an awful like like a coy way of saying that abusive conduct is okay. But it also misses the point of my argument: You can justify the abusiveness however you want, the but fact remains that if people find these venues too abusive they will simply stop using them. Each one of you has a choice, you can call out the abuse and make sure contributors (including whatever people you imagine to be "public figures") feel that they can comfortable public discussion about some speculative ideas, or you can pick up stones yourself, or turn away when others do and we can all lose access to these discussions.

As mentioned before, I am not justifying abuse at all nor do I condone it. I am merely attempting to explain why public perception is the way it is. Maybe you already know this, I personally do not know. But I am trying to express it in a level headed way in order to engage in dialog (such as the same dialog that we agree should always happen!).

AFAICT that was is all in the space of what was being proposed above. Since you're now saying similar stuff, be prepared to be on the receiving end of the abuse too, I guess. :-/

I'm not worried :).

That;s because there wasn't a concrete proposal here, there was just an open discussion. Or rather, an attempt at one that has been utterly submarined.

Fair enough, and that I can understand!

Will you make a personal commitment to stand up against claims of censorship if this thread is closed?

Do you think it's appropriate that a couple people raiding another community and hurling abuse and untrue claims can shut down any open discussion and force it behind closed doors? For people like Cobra going dark would no doubt save a lot of time and energy but do you think that its in the public interest that things be done this way?

I will always stand up for what I personally believe is honorable and justifiable within the best interests of the world. I had no issues calling out many influential persons when warranted in order to protect the sanctity of crypto currencies (Josh Garza, Brian Armstrong, and more recently Vitalik Buterin).

With that said, forcing people to go dark is uncalled for when discussing a realistic issue. There can be a take and give on both sides. But this also requires proper leadership that's able to gain the acceptance of all communities in order to flush out real dialog. In all honesty, what is presented to the community can be skewed from all sides (much like mainstream media), so as an academic its difficult to discern fact from fiction. It's upsetting that we have reached this point, and I hope one day we can put this all behind us.

I will say in all honesty, that I have yet to identify one person as that "leader" that is able to unite the Bitcoin community (on a personal level of course, this is just my personal feelings). I understand you are hardened over many months of dealing with trolls, but I can tell you that I am a honest person and hold no ill will towards you. I want to engage in a civil level of discussion while also pointing out issues I perceive.

Back onto topic

@Cobra-Bitcoin

My recommendations is to either release a second paper with proper authors spelled out clearly or add notes to the original paper and list it on the landing page to the original. This also keeps the original in the same link as before.

EDIT: Or closing this topic and waiting until discussions such as this dont become as heated.

[pangcong]

It is just like 2M hard fork. If there should be a 2M Hard fork, there must be consensus first. So if you want to modify the white paper, there must be consensus too! 95% consensus comes first!!! White paper is much more important than a piece of code.

[ABISprotocol]

Wow, how did this thread get so long?

Simply, NACK changing /bitcoin.pdf to an edited paper.

See also the very logical remarks from @jbenet above and general comments that have been offered by @petertodd on this.

[Rudd-O]

@gmaxwell HAHAHAHAHA! "Online violence", that's the most absurd thing I have heard in this thread — easily tops the attempt to pervert the paper brought up here.

I have more to say. You lie and you manipulate, Gregory. Your attempt at characterizing disagreement as "violence" is so transparent an SJW bullshit example. Worst of it all, you shield yourself in this little manipulative game of "don't use those nasty words I don't like", while dishing out opprobium and hate yourself. Hypocrite. That is what you are.

Thanks for the NACK @ABISprotocol .

I've said my peace. Greg can go continue trash-talk with made-up hyperboles if he wants. Not much we can do to remove the SJW from his brain anyway.

[stefment]

I think this is a legit concern. It seems like a good idea to leave bitcoin.pdf intact except to add at the top, clearly visible that its an outdated paper and then link to the updated one. But its important some time in the future if that document becomes out of date, to do the same thing. Have a nice day.

[JavierGonzalez]

It would not be the first time an altcoin was inspired by the original paper.