New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Amendments to the Bitcoin paper #1325

Closed
Cobra-Bitcoin opened this Issue Jul 2, 2016 · 99 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@Cobra-Bitcoin
Contributor

Cobra-Bitcoin commented Jul 2, 2016

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 However since the paper is so outdated, I believe it doesn't do a good job anymore of giving people a firm understanding of Bitcoin (at least the modern version).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 Academics are also regularly citing the paper and basing some of their reasoning and arguments on this outdated paper.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to be a high level overview of the current reference implementation, and that we should update it now that the paper is outdated and the reference implementation has changed significantly from 2009.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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Cobra-Bitcoin

Cobra-Bitcoin Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

Cobra-Bitcoin commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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?

Contributor

luke-jr commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theymos

theymos Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

theymos commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@NanoAkron

NanoAkron Jul 2, 2016

Many dictatorships rewrite history to suit their political goals.

NanoAkron commented Jul 2, 2016

Many dictatorships rewrite history to suit their political goals.

@illuzen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@illuzen

illuzen Jul 2, 2016

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.

illuzen commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ftrader

ftrader Jul 2, 2016

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?

ftrader commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ChainQuery

ChainQuery Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

ChainQuery commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gpushack

gpushack Jul 2, 2016

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

gpushack commented Jul 2, 2016

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

@Feri22

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Feri22

Feri22 Jul 2, 2016

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

Feri22 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dgenr8

dgenr8 Jul 2, 2016

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

dgenr8 commented Jul 2, 2016

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 comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@btcdrak

btcdrak Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

btcdrak commented Jul 2, 2016

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 comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@justfathi

justfathi Jul 2, 2016

This is madness!

justfathi commented Jul 2, 2016

This is madness!

@Feri22

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Feri22

Feri22 Jul 2, 2016

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...

Feri22 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MarcoPon

MarcoPon Jul 2, 2016

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.

MarcoPon commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 2, 2016

@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 comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@molecular

molecular Jul 2, 2016

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

molecular commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nopara73

nopara73 Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

nopara73 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@g4p

g4p Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

g4p commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fraggle222

fraggle222 Jul 2, 2016

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.

fraggle222 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@HostFat

HostFat Jul 2, 2016

I think that Blockstream_network.pdf is a good name.

HostFat commented Jul 2, 2016

I think that Blockstream_network.pdf is a good name.

@nopara73

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nopara73

nopara73 Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

nopara73 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@maddenw

maddenw Jul 2, 2016

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

maddenw commented Jul 2, 2016

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

@molecular

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@molecular

molecular Jul 2, 2016

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 commented Jul 2, 2016

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 comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@molecular

molecular Jul 2, 2016

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.

molecular commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nopara73

nopara73 Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

nopara73 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nopara73

nopara73 Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

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.

Contributor

nopara73 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@michaelcippolito

michaelcippolito Jul 2, 2016

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 commented Jul 2, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@michaelcippolito

michaelcippolito Jul 2, 2016

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

b1674191a88ec5cdd733e4240a81803105dc412d6c6708d53ab94fc248f4f553

michaelcippolito commented Jul 2, 2016

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

b1674191a88ec5cdd733e4240a81803105dc412d6c6708d53ab94fc248f4f553

@benjyz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@benjyz

benjyz Jul 3, 2016

"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

benjyz commented Jul 3, 2016

"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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gmaxwell

gmaxwell Jul 3, 2016

Contributor

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

Contributor

gmaxwell commented Jul 3, 2016

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

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 3, 2016

Contributor

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

Contributor

harding commented Jul 3, 2016

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

@jbenet

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jbenet

jbenet Jul 3, 2016

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:

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.

jbenet commented Jul 3, 2016

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:

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rudd-O

Rudd-O Jul 4, 2016

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.

Rudd-O commented Jul 4, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gmaxwell

gmaxwell Jul 4, 2016

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

gmaxwell commented Jul 4, 2016

@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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rudd-O

Rudd-O Jul 4, 2016

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 commented Jul 4, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rudd-O

Rudd-O Jul 4, 2016

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 commented Jul 4, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rudd-O

Rudd-O Jul 4, 2016

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

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

Rudd-O commented Jul 4, 2016

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

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

@gmaxwell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gmaxwell

gmaxwell Jul 4, 2016

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

gmaxwell commented Jul 4, 2016

@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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@radicalrafi

radicalrafi Jul 4, 2016

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 "

radicalrafi commented Jul 4, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheRealMage

TheRealMage Jul 4, 2016

@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

TheRealMage commented Jul 4, 2016

@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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gmaxwell

gmaxwell Jul 4, 2016

Contributor

@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. :(

Contributor

gmaxwell commented Jul 4, 2016

@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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheRealMage

TheRealMage Jul 4, 2016

@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.

TheRealMage commented Jul 4, 2016

@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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pangcong

pangcong Jul 4, 2016

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.

pangcong commented Jul 4, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ABISprotocol

ABISprotocol Jul 4, 2016

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.

ABISprotocol commented Jul 4, 2016

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rudd-O

Rudd-O Jul 9, 2016

@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.

Rudd-O commented Jul 9, 2016

@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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@stefment

stefment Jul 31, 2016

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.

stefment commented Jul 31, 2016

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.

@wbnns wbnns self-assigned this Dec 9, 2016

@wbnns wbnns added the On Hold label Dec 16, 2016

@JavierGonzalez

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JavierGonzalez

JavierGonzalez Jul 13, 2017

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

JavierGonzalez commented Jul 13, 2017

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

@bitcoin-dot-org bitcoin-dot-org deleted a comment from jli225 Jul 13, 2017

@wbnns wbnns removed their assignment Nov 29, 2017

@theMined

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theMined

theMined Dec 13, 2017

I hereby do not support a change in the original paper. I hereby recommend the core team to ADD a new separate version that ultimately link to the first/early paper.

theMined commented Dec 13, 2017

I hereby do not support a change in the original paper. I hereby recommend the core team to ADD a new separate version that ultimately link to the first/early paper.

@irkan-hadi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@irkan-hadi

irkan-hadi Dec 26, 2017

NACK

This isn't how white papers work, you can't just change another guy's white paper because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the current version of bitcoin is not reflective of the original paper, so please create your own white paper and feel free to link to the original.

irkan-hadi commented Dec 26, 2017

NACK

This isn't how white papers work, you can't just change another guy's white paper because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the current version of bitcoin is not reflective of the original paper, so please create your own white paper and feel free to link to the original.

@ion-storm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ion-storm

ion-storm Dec 26, 2017

The Satoshi white paper is historic, changing it would be an irresponsible act.

ion-storm commented Dec 26, 2017

The Satoshi white paper is historic, changing it would be an irresponsible act.

@dylankilkenny

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dylankilkenny

dylankilkenny Dec 26, 2017

Clone the repository and create a new chain with your own white paper, doesn't make sense updating something that has existed for 10 years

dylankilkenny commented Dec 26, 2017

Clone the repository and create a new chain with your own white paper, doesn't make sense updating something that has existed for 10 years

@molecular

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@molecular

molecular Dec 28, 2017

fork the paper if you want change, but change the name, too

molecular commented Dec 28, 2017

fork the paper if you want change, but change the name, too

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment