I see no problem with Satoshi returning to participate in peer review. Bitcoin development has long since migrated from a single authority figure to a system of technical peer review consensus. What is more of a problem is this list has degenerated to a generalised discussion forum where any academic or technical debate is drowned out by noise.

I joined this list so I keep be abreast of bitcoin's technical development and proposals. I am sure many ecosystem stakeholders and participants also once used this list to keep abreast of technical developments and academic research. It would be splendid indeed if we could return to some semblance of decorum that once existed.

Do you think we could have a "bitcoin-discuss" list where specifically non-technical discussion can happen leaving this list for more academic and technical debate together with setting a clear mandate about what is on topic for this list?

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Micha Bailey via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

My interpretation is that he's saying Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return as Satoshi, because whatever he did/said would inevitably end up being treated with authority, which shouldn't be the case.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense that you are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted to be active in development again?

Warren

On Aug 17, 2015 1:38 PM, "Oliver Egginger" <bitcoin@olivere.de> wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.:
> This bitcoin-dev list restarted with an empty subscriber list on June
> 21st, 2015. So whoever posted from satoshi@vistomail.com
> <mailto:satoshi@vistomail.com> subscribed and verified the address
> recently. Do you propose that we manually approve new subscribers to
> prevent these kind of "abuses" as you put it?

I would simply block the creators old email addresses. Easy with
Mailman. I thought that would be a good and easy approach, but maybe I'm
wrong.

Some believes it is possible that the email could be genuine. Some say
that only the content is important. I have closely followed. An
interesting discussion. Thank you all so far.

But let's say the poster would be the real Satoshi. Would we discuss his
posting if he would not claim to be Satoshi? There are a lot of smart
people on this list, which publish occasionally quite useful ideas. But
much of this is hardly the subject of greater discussion. Especially not
when it comes to the blocksize. On this subject almost everything has
been already said. But not yet by everyone. Especially not by Satoshi.

Satoshi would have a decisive influence on the community. I'm sure. To
say it does not matter who's talking is maybe genteelly but a little bit
remote from everyday life. Or not? Satoshi is the creator. What he says
is in the newspaper and is perceived by all. If he says it's okay to do
nothing as long as we stand together, then people have the courage to do
maybe something dangerous or something wrong. Then people only follow
their hearts. Otherwise they follow their fear. It is a paradox of the
human nature that some type of Dictatorship can make you free. I say
some type, not any type. Enough said.

- oliver

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev