Recent Craig Steven Wright Q&A

[grabberfish]

Yesterday, on a Slack channel, CSW took part in a Q&A session with the help of a user named vlad2vlad initially assisting with the transcription of CSW's answers, until CSW fired up his own account and jump in first-hand at 0643. The text of the session has been posted here: https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK

The conversation makes interesting reading and CSW provides some fascinating nuggets. The following are some that stood out.

On the departure of Satoshi:

Q: are you sad that you left Bitcoin in 2010? Was it a mistake?
A: I did not leave Bitcoin. Gavin was left to manage the code with others. That is not leaving.

Q: How would you call it then?
A: I stopped responding to trolls. The base protocol was and is fine.

Q: what is the base protocol?
A: With the cap removed it remains ok.

Why the 21m coin limit:

Q: Why was 21 million chosen? was it arbitrary number or is there a reason for that particular number?
A: M. 21 million links to global M1. There are no decimal points, 21 million is the reference for people, the no. Satoshi (and I did not call them that) are related to M1.

Q: can you expand on that?
A: http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=m0,-m1,-m2,-m3,-m4. If you read the 08 paper, you will note the use of fiat as a value. Sect, 9. Page 5. In the use of 21 million x 10^8 parts you have a value that maps to the cent. That is, to global M1. This would be 21,000,000,000,000 USD as M1. 21,000 trillion.

Q: So bitcoin is meant to displace global fiat
A: The idea is global cash. A single world currency

Why Adam Back was credited in the whitepaper:

Q: Why did you credit Adam Back hashcash when you didn't use it?
A: Adam intro'd Wei. I do not generally talk to people I do not know. Not without an intro.

Q: But why credit him while you not used his? This wrong citation creates this evil blockstream
A: Adam was helpful for all that he said it would not work, but I am used to people saying my work is not worth considering. Again, I never foresaw the world to come as it has come. I did not see the politics. I saw state actors as more the issue than Adam B(l)ack

On UASF and what are nodes:

Q: I know you touched on the 1mb cap and mining but can you comment on the idea of the UASF, (user activated soft fork) and your thought on using it to implement segwit? Also general thoughts on segwit? Thanks.
A: UASF - Miners are nodes. Nodes are miners. There are NO full non-mining nodes. Please read the paper. It is VERY VERY clear. If you have issues, look at the code. "Nodes" that are not mining are wallets, these are fat SPV systems and sock puppets

Views on SegWit:

Q: And then segwit generally?
A: SegWit centralises the system

I hope we hear more from CSW moving forwards.

[LiteCoinGuy]

It really can´t go more lunatic than that - LOL! Hail Hoaxtoshi, please lead the way!

[grabberfish]

It really can´t go more lunatic than that - LOL! Hail Hoaxtoshi, please lead the way!

I think he makes some clear and insightful comments. It's a truism that truth is stranger than fiction, hence the saying "you couldn't make it up". Jokes and such aside, where do you see the lunacy? I'll agree that he does come across as somewhat eccentric, but the greatest minds usually are disconnected from the social norms.

The question of CSWs relationship to the Satoshi character is a sideline story that will continue to be used as a stick to stir up division and tribal rivalries, but the content of the messages are what is important: different thoughts and views. We should not have to listen to a Dear Leader from any single camp, but should try and work together with all voices being given a chance to air their views. If there is value in the message then we should take heed. CSW does not want to be leader. That much I believe to be true as he evidently does not have the social skills to be such.

What do you think of the Q&A? Were there any parts (positive or negative) you would share your thinking on?