CW isn't Satoshi. Period. However, even if Satoshi did return, they have no right to take control of the protocol. If you disappear, orphaning your idea to be raised by others, you can't magically appear and claim credit for it.

The Whitepaper is a brilliantly authored document. It didn't foresee all of the problems we would face to get to this point, but it did lay out the groundwork for peer-to-peer electronic cash. It was also very clear about being censorship resistant and decentralized. There are many other improvements and new approaches that will be made that are compatible, but were never mentioned or even thought of. This is how technological advancements work: one person has a brilliant idea and then others bring more brilliance and make it better.

CW and SV couldn't be farther than the ideals put forth in the Whitepaper. CW's twitter rants prove that he doesn't have a sound mind capable of authoring such a document. Being "in the room" doesn't count. Being an observer doesn't make you the author.

Someone like Satoshi wouldn't be concerned with patents or money. If he were then his coins would have moved by now and Bitcoin wouldn't have made this it far.

I'm writing this post because this feels like an inflection point in Bitcoin's history. I feel as though the entire future of this technological advancement rests on our shoulders. If we allow BCH to be taken over by the money or power hungry then this is a failed experiment. Cryptocurrencies are here to stay, but if we fail here and let SV take over, they will all be absorbed into the current financial system, reliant on centralized bank custody, payment hubs and middlemen fees all backed by your government of choice. This would be a redefinition of the central bank trust model that forces you to have more of it.

Bitcoin is trustless and peer to peer. On-chain not nChain. Remember that.

submitted by /u/masterD3v
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9wwjfm/cw_isnt_satoshi_period_however_even_if_satoshi/