Topic: An interesting fact from the posting history of satoshi (Read 519 times)
Thats looks like intresting history lesson, thanks
Bump
There are really a lot of interesting facts, but some of them are fake.
Feel free to share your findings and give more details about what you think is fake. You can see from satoshi's quote that I shared in the opening post that he specifically mentioned two sites. He talked about how it is much easier to create an account on such sites than to work with unknown software (satoshi's bitcoin client at that time). It's faster and doesn't require the user to download the entire blockchain. Isn't he probably right ? I mean, instead of setting up a full node can't we just use the most trusted online website for smaller amounts of bitcoin ?
He WAS right when he said it because back in those days there was a very limited offer on wallets. You had Bitcoin Core that required the download of the entire blockchain. Some people didn't want to do that, because they either didn't care too much about bitcoin at the time, they simply didn't want to, or they didn't have or were prepared to make available the storage capacities to host full nodes. Since light wallets were nonexistent, you only had a chice between exchanges - web wallets - Bitcoin Core. 
In the meantime, sites like vekja.net and www.mybitcoin.com have been experimenting with account-based sites. You create an account on a website and hold your bitcoins on account there and transfer in and out. Creating an account on a website is a lot easier than installing and learning to use software, and a more familiar way of doing it for most people. The only disadvantage is that you have to trust the site, but that's fine for pocket change amounts for micropayments and misc expenses. It's an easy way to get started and if you get larger amounts then you can upgrade to the actual bitcoin software.
Was the creator of bitcoin suggesting that online custodial wallets were a good alternative, especially for smaller amounts?
Isn't he probably right ? I mean, instead of setting up a full node can't we just use the most trusted online website for smaller amounts of bitcoin ?
I know there's no point of holding bitcoins if we don't own the private keys but people are doing it already.
Thousands if not millions of traders are holding their bitcoins on exchanges. If not major chunks of bitcoin but still small to medium amount of their portfolio will still be on exchanges for active trading.
May be this is what Satoshi meant.
If you want to research the faucet transactions you might follow my donation to it using a block explorer ...
Incredible contribution BitcoinFX. I might use this as an example for a thread I am thinking of writing soon. It doesn't really fit the main topic, but I will see if I can make it work. It's always great to see how the early members helped out the community when help was needed! It is a pity that sites like that are just left to die..... take Freebitco.in as an example.... it was one of the early faucets and it had to adapt when Ad companies stopped paying for faucet traffic. (turning it self into a more gambling orientated site to survive)
It is absolutely crazy that you had to pay a fee for a wallet service back then... (if I understood it correctly, you pay for the web hosting and the wallet account...right?)
What happened to Gavin's faucet? (Is there any archived info about that)
I agree with you...people just cant understund how freebitcoin give to people when the bitcoin wss cheap...the early claimers from this faucet are rich now if they hold theire satoshis that they claimed daily...freebitcoin must be one of the bitcoin simbols but many butcoiners dont care about it It is absolutely crazy that you had to pay a fee for a wallet service back then... (if I understood it correctly, you pay for the web hosting and the wallet account...right?)
What happened to Gavin's faucet? (Is there any archived info about that)
...snip...
http://web.archive.org/web/20100703032414/https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/
As the value of Bitcoin increased, Gavin naturally lowered to faucet amounts. In August of the same year it was down to 0.05 bitcoins.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100805002250/https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/
This was later lowered to 0.005 bitcoin and I think the last faucet drops were 0.001 bitcoin. Somewhere towards the end of 2012 the faucet no longer gave out any more bitcoins. I think I read somewhere that Gavin gave away over 20.000 bitcoins through his faucet in the early days. He was instrumental in fueling the early adoption.
What happened to Gavin's faucet? (Is there any archived info about that)
Gavin was giving away 5 bitcoins at the beginning. The earliest achieves date back to July 2010 when that offer was still available.http://web.archive.org/web/20100703032414/https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/
As the value of Bitcoin increased, Gavin naturally lowered to faucet amounts. In August of the same year it was down to 0.05 bitcoins.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100805002250/https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/
This was later lowered to 0.005 bitcoin and I think the last faucet drops were 0.001 bitcoin. Somewhere towards the end of 2012 the faucet no longer gave out any more bitcoins. I think I read somewhere that Gavin gave away over 20.000 bitcoins through his faucet in the early days. He was instrumental in fueling the early adoption.
If you want to research the faucet transactions you might follow my donation to it using a block explorer ...
...snip...
My 500 BTC donation to Gavin's Original Bitcoin Faucet is from this wallet ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7536
Date: 04/08/2010 18:27
To: 15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC
Debit: -500.00000000 BTC
Net amount: -500.00000000 BTC
Transaction ID: 92435cc4da7808976aa6d3d9c8fb02e7fe23a48b9f9c73145ef738b0d8d977e2
Transaction total size: 1135 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 1135 bytes
Output index: 0
Satoshi ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1620
...snip...
My 500 BTC donation to Gavin's Original Bitcoin Faucet is from this wallet ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7536
Date: 04/08/2010 18:27
To: 15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC
Debit: -500.00000000 BTC
Net amount: -500.00000000 BTC
Transaction ID: 92435cc4da7808976aa6d3d9c8fb02e7fe23a48b9f9c73145ef738b0d8d977e2
Transaction total size: 1135 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 1135 bytes
Output index: 0
Satoshi ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1620
...snip...
It is absolutely crazy that you had to pay a fee for a wallet service back then... (if I understood it correctly, you pay for the web hosting and the wallet account...right?)
I think it was all part of the hosting package. You bought hosting, received an email address, and a bitcoin web wallet. All that cost 25 bitcoin per week. That's how I interpreted the offer.What happened to Gavin's faucet? (Is there any archived info about that)
Gavin was giving away 5 bitcoins at the beginning. The earliest achieves date back to July 2010 when that offer was still available.http://web.archive.org/web/20100703032414/https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/
As the value of Bitcoin increased, Gavin naturally lowered to faucet amounts. In August of the same year it was down to 0.05 bitcoins.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100805002250/https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/
This was later lowered to 0.005 bitcoin and I think the last faucet drops were 0.001 bitcoin. Somewhere towards the end of 2012 the faucet no longer gave out any more bitcoins. I think I read somewhere that Gavin gave away over 20.000 bitcoins through his faucet in the early days. He was instrumental in fueling the early adoption.
It is a pity that sites like that are just left to die..... take Freebitco.in as an example.... it was one of the early faucets and it had to adapt when Ad companies stopped paying for faucet traffic. (turning it self into a more gambling orientated site to survive)
It is absolutely crazy that you had to pay a fee for a wallet service back then... (if I understood it correctly, you pay for the web hosting and the wallet account...right?)
What happened to Gavin's faucet? (Is there any archived info about that)
It is absolutely crazy that you had to pay a fee for a wallet service back then... (if I understood it correctly, you pay for the web hosting and the wallet account...right?)
What happened to Gavin's faucet? (Is there any archived info about that)
One good thing that came out from this series of hacking incidents is that users slowly understood that trusting others to keep your coins safe can lead to horrendous losses. One step at a time. People still need time. We are, after all, a population taught to trust third parties (banks) with our money. Our parents did it, and so did their parents. That shift to becoming independent will take decades.
Yet if we consider that about 1 million BTC are owned by Coinbase, then I could not conclude that people have learned anything in the past 7 years since the Mt.Gox incident. Although they claim that 98% of user coins are in cold wallets, so it is safe from hacking - no one thinks that Coinbase is a US company, and who says that one morning we will not wake up and US authorities will freeze all funds in Coinbase accounts? It is very easy in the country which has the attitude "we can do whatever we want - wherever we want", all under the pretext of fighting terrorism, money laundering or national security.
The difference between fiat and BTC is huge, someone steals money from your bank account, the bank will compensate if it is proven that the client is not guilty - someone steals crypto from the exchange, after 7 years clients are still waiting...
I'm happy bitcoin getting higher
This is also confirmed by the total amount of BTC hacked from Mt. Gox in 2014 (850 000), which means that the trust in such services was very high - but it is unbelievable that this is the case even today - millions of BTC are in custodial crypto wallets.
One good thing that came out from this series of hacking incidents is that users slowly understood that trusting others to keep your coins safe can lead to horrendous losses. One step at a time. People still need time. We are, after all, a population taught to trust third parties (banks) with our money. Our parents did it, and so did their parents. That shift to becoming independent will take decades.Thanks op for bringing it to light. I think Satoshi wanted to boost adoption this way, and it was probably a good call.
It was a good call, I totally agree. Satoshi knew the complexity of the software and technology he developed, and he knew that many people would rather not play around and experiment with things they don't understand. He offered them an easy solution and if they got hooked to it, they would ask for the proper tools themselves. I wish you understand it. There are many things only few of you understand.
Do tell please. Don't be shy. Educate your herd of sheep. In the meantime, sites like vekja.net and www.mybitcoin.com have been experimenting with account-based sites. You create an account on a website and hold your bitcoins on account there and transfer in and out. Creating an account on a website is a lot easier than installing and learning to use software, and a more familiar way of doing it for most people. The only disadvantage is that you have to trust the site, but that's fine for pocket change amounts for micropayments and misc expenses. It's an easy way to get started and if you get larger amounts then you can upgrade to the actual bitcoin software.
Was the creator of bitcoin suggesting that online custodial wallets were a good alternative, especially for smaller amounts?
This is the part that got me the most 'destory the bankers ability to control our destiny with their printing press, God damn, if you still don't understand why Satoshi Nakamoto vanished into thin air you will forever remain dumb, 🤣🤣🤣🤣, this smart man knew that it's a war on banks and the government for crying out loud, if Nakamoto was visible and well known it would have end up pretty bad, what a smart human being👍👍👍
It is more precisely a war on bankers and their ability to print fiat, inflating the value of money away, not necessarily banks. Banks in and of themselves are not a bad thing if they are fully reserved and not enabled by the governments to print money at whim. It is a war in dishonest governments, dishonest bankers, dishonest politicians, and dishonest money. It is a war on authoritarians and collectivists who use the power to print money to obtain power. See Venezuela, Cyprus, Cuba, North Korea, Argentina and many, many others who are attempting to buy people by promising "free" stuff using the hours and minutes of your lives to get the money to do so.
In short, it is a war for every person's freedom to protect themselves and the creations of their lives from people who believe they have the right to dispose of your life to satisfy their whims. Their need justifies the seizure of your means.
This is the part that got me the most 'destory the bankers ability to control our destiny with their printing press, God damn, if you still don't understand why Satoshi Nakamoto vanished into thin air you will forever remain dumb, 🤣🤣🤣🤣, this smart man knew that it's a war on banks and the government for crying out loud, if Nakamoto was visible and well known it would have end up pretty bad, what a smart human being👍👍👍
Thanks op for bringing it to light. I think Satoshi wanted to boost adoption this way, and it was probably a good call.
I doubt that satoshi ever used a web wallet.
Many others who did arguably increased the value of coins of those who did not !
Something, something lost down the side of the proverbial digital sofa ...
Probably not, but since Bitcoin was still very new, Satoshi probably wanted to find a way of making Bitcoin more accessible, so that people who are not techy could start using them. And I suppose the amount to store there should depend on its purchasing power and on how much (as Ucy pointed out) some money is worth to a particular person relative to this person's capital. Pocket money in BTC in 2020 and in 2010 are to very different things.Many others who did arguably increased the value of coins of those who did not !
Something, something lost down the side of the proverbial digital sofa ...
I believe the "small amount" is relative. What is consider small to you may be consider large amounts to certain people. A farmer who considers $300 as large amount should be able to easily run full nodes and properly secure the amount rather than doing that with online custodial wallet. It's a big risk to such farmer considering the amount involve.
The online custodial wallet should be for what Bitcoin users consider small and can afford to risk.
Nothing stops Network members from making it possible for all/most users to easily run full node and secure their very valuable assets.
By the way, I believe Bitcoin should be Multi-chains like this:
✔ Interesting way to get millions of people run full nodes: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53809244
Satoshi spoke about the idea of Sidechain (probably the first to mention the word), but wasn't detailed.
His mention of the word Sidechains (and interestingly, Masterchain)
He is probably not the first to mention the word for crypto project
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
The online custodial wallet should be for what Bitcoin users consider small and can afford to risk.
Nothing stops Network members from making it possible for all/most users to easily run full node and secure their very valuable assets.
By the way, I believe Bitcoin should be Multi-chains like this:
✔ Interesting way to get millions of people run full nodes: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53809244
Satoshi spoke about the idea of Sidechain (probably the first to mention the word), but wasn't detailed.
.
By the way, I believe Bitcoin should be Multi-chains like this:
✔ Interesting way to get millions of people run full nodes: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53809244
Satoshi spoke about the idea of Sidechain (probably the first to mention the word), but wasn't detailed.
By the way, I believe Bitcoin should be Multi-chains like this:
✔ Interesting way to get millions of people run full nodes: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53809244
Satoshi spoke about the idea of Sidechain (probably the first to mention the word), but wasn't detailed.
His mention of the word Sidechains (and interestingly, Masterchain)
He is probably not the first to mention the word for crypto project
The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chainsalso for the same work.
While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?
If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.
You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.
In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal. You've been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility. We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes.
Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.
.While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?
If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.
You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.
In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal. You've been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility. We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes.
Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
I know that Multibit gave users full control of their keys, but I don't think it was available in 2010. It probably came out the year after. The choices were indeed slim back then.
That's right, MultiBit Classic first became available in September 2011, and Electrum also dates from that year. However, if we take into account that such solutions were quite new at the time, it is logical that the first users mostly used the easier option (online wallets), even a few years after such non-custodial wallets existed.
This is also confirmed by the total amount of BTC hacked from Mt. Gox in 2014 (850 000), which means that the trust in such services was very high - but it is unbelievable that this is the case even today - millions of BTC are in custodial crypto wallets.
Those other stories are donators and VIP members of the forum. They donated 10 or 50 bitcoin to support the forum and get a title Donator or VIP and badges. How do they feel about their past decisions today?
I think they feel better than the members considering getting decorated with the Donator tag today only to realize that the fee is still 10 for a Donator tag and 50 for a VIP tag. The prices haven't changed since the old days.Even things like seed phrases didn't exist back then, so you had to back up your wallet file, and if you happened to receive coins, you had to backup again, if a wallet wasn't deterministic.
This was indeed a real hassle. I can't even imagine how many users most have lost coins for not having the most recent version of their wallet.dat files when they faced hardware failures. Or like the guy who threw away his old hard drive that kept the only copy of his private keys that could access 7.500 bitcoins.
However, it should be taken into account that at that time the choice of non-custodial wallets was very narrow (was there anything other than Bitcoin Core?), so it should come as no surprise that Satoshi had just such an opinion.
I know that Multibit gave users full control of their keys, but I don't think it was available in 2010. It probably came out the year after. The choices were indeed slim back then. Jump to: