Topic: Are we wrong? Bitcoin or Blockchain what does Satoshi actually mean? - page 2. (Read 277 times)

Bitcoin wasn't created so that the banking cartels and world governments can have an easier task to monitor who owns what and who pays how much to whom. That's what centralized digital banking assets are supposed to do. Bitcoin is decentralized with a worldwide use case.   

Bitcoin has very limited smart-contract functionalities. Ethereum offers more possibilities. But it has many dangers that stem from badly-configured smart contracts, like the DAO hack showed us. Or take any of the breeches, hacks, or exit scams of various DeFi platforms. 

Bitcoin is the first and most successful use case of blockchain technology. I don't see how you could patent something that is open-source, community developed, and doesn't belong to anyone, but at the same time belongs to everyone.   

smart contracts existed way before blockchains.. but they did not work, because there was no audit mechanism nothing to peg it to to ensure duplication/double spend/counterfeiting cant occur.
it was the main bane in cypherpunks lives, trying to solve how to make smart contracts actually not become multiplied/double spent/counterfeited.

satoshi invented the blockchain as the invention. and bitcoin as the utility example that shows its function.

many silly people are trying now to re-invent new networks that dont need a blockchain. yet they then stumble back into the flaws of what the cypherpunks were falling into 13+ years ago.

the blockchain is:
a ledger, log, registry
but also part of the invention is the rules about the blockchain. like it being:
an auditor
an immutable way to prevent double spending/counterfeiting
requiring expense/work to collate the data,
incentivise said work with reward
ensuring the work is not easy to just be abused
not cheap to manipulate but more rewarding to not manipulate

if it was a centralised blockchain(one copy on one server). then thats a central point of failure.
failures of power, hardware glitches, sabotage, internet outages, service outages in bad weather, etc etc

which is why a decentralised blockchain has its advantages

having a entity of employee's using one reference client but distributed across many different locations. can preserve some security against a single employee 'pulling the plug' or editing the ledger. and the remote locations can mitigate against weather, internet, electric and single server failure.. but again if they are all relying on the same software, they all have a problem if there is a software bug.

having a single dev team working on one reference client is a central point of failure, because if their is a bug in that brands software everyone relies on for the protocol, everyone has a problem. if the dev team change a rule that goes against the moral good of citizens. everyone has a problem

diversity of random people not connected or in relationship to each other all maintaining the ledger at block creation and dev software development is the other key piece that satoshi solved with bitcoins blockchain invention

and back then there WAS also a diverse base of different 'reference clients' all sticking to the main rules but using different implementations  on how they do extra features beyond the basic consensus rules
(local store in different DB sets)(some had extra rules to double check transactions and blocks.)
this diversity has waned somewhat in the last 7 years.

---

a CBDC has advantages over normal digital fiat.
EG having blockchain nodes per bank branch means there is no single point of failure of hardware risk(pulling plug, electric/internet loss, weather hazards)
EG no single employee can defraud the system
EG a government agency cant just send a swat team into a central bank HQ and pull the plug.

but.. here is the but.
it all depends on how they allow bank customer/citizen access to it

negative
if its a multisig setup where a bank branch has a key of a 2of2 multisig. then banks can still refuse to sign.
(positive. a bank cannot make a payment without the customer(no fund seizure, only freeze access)

negative
if its a multisig setup where a bank branch has a key and bank HQ/IRS has a key of a 2of3 multisig. then bank branch + HQ/IRS can seize funds without citizens consent/authorisation
(positive. a bank cannot seize funds without other partner HQ/IRS. EG IRS cant seize funds without bank cooperation)

negative
if banks are incharge of the key creation they can veto out utility of certain people not even getting a key. EG undocumented immigrants with no ID

an only true "freedom" CBDC would be if customers can set up their own keys where only the customer has the key to sign funds for, whereby the CB just acts as the miners and service provider for a fee

Perhaps the original goal was to protest to make the system better because of the dilapidation of privacy and traditional banking.

Like losing control. Manipulation, fraud or scam projects and other negative things came with bubble, but there are still many that are positive and useful for the wider community especially for government agencies and institutions.

This is indeed the case because of the opportunities that exist because it is still a new technology and a young market, but I am sure that in the future this will decrease by itself because the gaps will gradually be filled.

I think that's the best part of their invention.

They created sound money whose main aspect was censorship resistance. And what could it make it susceptible to censorship? The founder. Remove the founder and leave the repository to a few decently trustworthy developers; no one can abuse the ability to change Bitcoin and make their change official by the alibi that they've founded it. Impressive.

If Satoshi wanted to profit from his invention, he would do it a long time ago already. As far as we know, he didn't sell any of his coins yet.

And I doubt that Satoshi can patent blockchain even if he wanted to. Bitcoin is open source and free software, so any products delivered from it fully belong to the creators.

if you read Satoshi messages, from time to time he specifically criticized the entire history of gov debasing their fiat system.

Bitcoin, is meant to replicate something scarce like gold, in order to be consistent, predictable and fixed.
This also means that the bitcoin protocol move something of value.

While other tokens/coins on other blockchain specialized in developing utilities, Jack Mallers gave a really good point in the What Bitcoin Did podcast.
the USD doesn't need yield farming to be attractive for global investors to hold.

Since bitcoin is the base layer of money, it doesn't necessarily need defi to flourish, its existence itself is the ultimate selling point.

It really doesn't matter how other projects utilize blockchain as a tech, some are over shooting the moon, some may or may not work. But it's best to focus specifically on Bitcoin, the one that fundamentally is sound and long lasting.

Since Mr. Satoshi never showed up in front of the world that is biggest missing piece from the blockchain element. I envy that this guy made unrealistic world for us with endless possibilities to tackle the modern problems of data integrity. May be he showed us the way to better privacy and strong infra to run traditional banking. However, the world has changed everything to the profit making machine!

Everyone started to make their own projects, whether mega institutions or IT companies; everything is gone wrong I believe.

They literally evolved way to brokerage companies, market manipulation techniques, and looking at it as way to make money.

There is no harm, but there is possibility that the story could have been different for Blockchain.

I think CBDCs will always lack certain qualities bitcoin has. Bitcoin (and other cryptos like ethereum) is open source and has many native developers on it, a CBDC might have people less experienced and will include beurocracy to slow down the whole process. Many cryptos also don't rely on trust which CBDCs might.

Some cryptos like xmr also are privacy coins and are harder or impossible to trace.

The government and people want corporations to be as transparent to them as possible, many governments get confused between private individuals and corporations though as the lines are a bit blurry in a lot of cases and so governments over track in ways which is what people don't like.

Have we misunderstood? It's not about Bitcoin or any other crypto but the blockchain itself. From the beginning of the emergence of cryptographic technology, smart contracts, defi and even NFT, all aspects have changed to be more, safer and of course able to guarantee the authenticity of a work (one of which is Bitcoin = the work itself).

1. Blockchain can change perception a bank or a country, when the price soars and falls again in a matter of minutes it can attract the attention of a country and even the central bank in that country which inevitably bank institutions and goverment will pay attention to ban the bitcoin because of this. But the great thing is that Bitcoin is still around and many people are starting to recognize and buying Bitcoin despite the prohibitions related to bitcoin where they live. Over time, banks and government institutions began to research blockchain until they claim will issue their own digital currency.
If banks actually use blockchain and issue standard central bank currencies or CBDCs which they call, this would be the same as Bitcoin or crypto in general?
Fees will also be cheap, transactions can be tracked, isn't this what we want? unlike the current banking system.

Is Bitcoin a marketing tool?

2. Smart contracts, Defi and NFT. Equally a very great product in my opinion that has an important role in all aspects of course after Bitcoin.
The three innovations were able to attract the attention of many groups from the government, property industry, aviation industry, artists, musicians and many more and of course you all know.
Unconsciously it's all developments and advances from the blockchain itself over time.

Smart contracts, Defi, NFT and altcoins associated with the project as a marketing tool?

Maybe one day the real Satoshi appeared and did a patent the blockchain. Is this the real purpose of Satoshi's intention to create Bitcoin?
Will Bitcoin remain valuable or vice versa? for sure Blockchain will still exist and will be a large system that will be used by many institutions and even governments.

What do you guys think?

Sorry if there are still wrong words or excessive thoughts from me, these are just my pent-up thoughts

Cheers