<div dir="ltr">Just to add some superfluous and unessential spice to this discussion, there were two Satoshi users originally registered in sourceforge, one registered very soon after the other. So I say Satoshi were at least two people, so it may be the case that one Satoshi re-appeared, but the other did not. <div><br><div>Ore maybe one Satoshi is for Bitcoin XT, and the other Satoshi is against it.</div><div><br></div><div>Satoshi wars!<br><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Anon Moto via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">And this is how the powers that be compromise bitcoin. They can't stop TCP/IP, but they sure can take over the development team. It's a good thing that no one from the CIA has had any conversations with anyone from the bitcoin development team. Phew...<br><br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>Am 18.08.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.:<br>
> I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense that you<br>
> are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted to be<br>
> active in development again?<br>
<br>
</span>Who am I? Personally I have zero objection if the creator steps in. I<br>
think he would be highly welcome by the most people. At first I had the<br>
impression that the email was a fake, but maybe I was wrong. At the<br>
moment I think: Maybe it's even the best if we do not know exactly<br>
whether it was Satoshi or not.<br>
<br>
Unanimity is mission critical for Bitcoin and must be an absolute<br>
priority. If not the vast majority is in favor for a fork, then the fork<br>
should be avoided until a consensus is found. Even if it takes until the<br>
cows come home.<br>
<br>
But it is very likely now that it will come to a fork. No matter which<br>
site will win, this will produce a lot of humiliated people at the end.<br>
That's not good and leads to bitterness on both sites.<br>
<div><div><br>
- oliver<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>