{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325/events","html_url":"https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325","id":163491953,"number":1325,"title":"Amendments to the Bitcoin paper","user":{"login":"Cobra-Bitcoin","id":12899428,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12899428?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin","html_url":"https://github.com/Cobra-Bitcoin","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":5,"created_at":"2016-07-02T00:05:43Z","updated_at":"2016-07-02T04:19:17Z","closed_at":null,"body":"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 However since the paper is so outdated, I believe it doesn't do a good job anymore of giving people a firm understanding of Bitcoin (at least the modern version).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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nNormally 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.\r\n\r\nThere 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."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/comments/230082608","html_url":"https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325#issuecomment-230082608","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325","id":230082608,"user":{"login":"theymos","id":628984,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/628984?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos","html_url":"https://github.com/theymos","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theymos/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-07-02T04:19:17Z","updated_at":"2016-07-02T04:19:17Z","body":"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.\r\n\r\nMaybe 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\").\r\n\r\n> https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf2bb3\r\n\r\nThat looks pretty good, though I suspect that some other experts will have additional things to add.\r\n\r\n> 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\".\r\n\r\nBitcoin 0.1 actually did just compute the longest chain by number of blocks. Satoshi fixed this pretty early IIRC.\r\n\r\nI'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:\r\n\r\n>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."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"theymos"}}