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

Sometimes I do think that the reason why Satoshi Nakamoto decided to stay away Bitcoin and leave it in the hands of other developers is because he never wanted to feel the pressure to tamper with anything at all. And another can be that if he continued to stay around till now, Bitcoin has become very popular around the world and even seems to be a challenge to the government, they would have started making attempts to track him down and reveal his identity of he was still around.

So, he chose that it is best for him to move on and focus on other things as a way to save his identity and maintain his privacy, and as well protect the community. Whatever he has made today, I believe it is indeed for the best.

Just in case it would come to pass that the genuine Satoshi Nakamoto can surfaced, I don't think he will have the desire to patent the blockchain or any part of it since from the very start I think he made it clear to be very open source and he ahs no desire to profit anything from it as if it is his gift to humanity. And more than 10 years later, we are enjoying the fruits of his labor and the blockchain technology has become a very popular technological tool anybody can use for different applications and purposes. Now, on matters of the digital currencies that government's can be issuing via their central banks which we termed to be CBDC, they are just digitalized version of their fiat money and I don't think those can be making a negative impact on Bitcoin and in fact they can even make Bitcoin more popular and an affirmation of the immense value of the blockchain technology and cryptocurrency.

Thank you for all the responses from you guys. I feel relieved with what I pour out, with the comments from you guys have opened my mind. What I thought, it turned out that there was still a wrong side, because of this misperception I had such thoughts. I hope blockchain will continue to grow, and Bitcoin will be even better.

The government’s purpose for creating CBDC is to rival cryptocurrencies that are decentralized. But their aim and purpose of doing that has already been ruined, because people are not ready to accept the CBDC and that is fact. People are already tired of trading their privacy, trusting financial institutions, and ending up being disappointed.

But Bitcoin is a trustless system, and individuals are able to be in full control of their wealth. Instead of having to leave it in the hands of financial institutions who would do as they please. This time around Bitcoin has given that power to the people to wield control over what they have.

Bitcoin will keep on growing, in fact it will be far much better than the CBDC that the government and the central banks are creating. So far there have been a few countries that have embrace the idea of creating their own central bank digital currencies, but we haven't really seen any major success on these CBDCs that these countries have created.

People have refused to adopt digital currencies that the government has been creating, and most of them have chosen to make use of Bitcoin instead,or continue making use of their normal Fiat currency. Most people have also said that they don’t see the difference between making use of a bank app and making use of the digital currencies wallet that the government are creating, since it is still the same thing with making use of Fiat.

Blockchain plays a major role in bitcoin and every cryptos but without them I do not think blockchain will ever be discovered or created. Price change can attract a person because they see an opportunity with it, they can use this for trading or investing to earn an income but I don't think this is the main reason on why a government ban btc.

It could be because btc or blockchain is unregulated and its easy for criminals to do their act using btc or any other cryptos and government are only protecting their people from this so they conduct a ban. BTC can be a marketing tool because it leads other to discover blockchain. Creations of other currencies using blockchain might affect btc but not too much.

Satoshi's real purpose is to create an alternative digital currency (bitcoin) over the fiat currency which breached the individuals trust to security, privacy and charges of fraction units from one's account.


Bitcoin has come to stay and will remained valuable just as gold, if you google the internet, you will find out that bitcoin, gold, share/bond and real estate are the major investment on the trend as at this days.


This is happening already.


The idea behind block chain is that its a public ledger in which anyone can have access to, see but cannot be altered, yet they still implicate all character traits of a fiat cbcd in their currency modules such as zero privacy, high charges fees and centralization. bitcoin uses blockchain but completely anonymous and decentralized.


This isn't all we want, we demand 100% trust, privacy, security independency (freedom).
digital cbdc is nothing different to traditional fiat banking system and is totally different to bitcoin in it entirety.

They aren't really banning Bitcoin because of its price? They're banning it cause it's trying to damage their centralized system. A perfect example would be China and its very centralized-centric system.


Pretty sure it's too late? And he could've done so originally if he wanted to. He had a vision of what he wanted Bitcoin to be using blockchain tech, pretty sure he already had an idea of what it could've been. Even if it wasn't to the level of what we have right now, he should still somewhat have an idea. Besides, I think with how he made Bitcoin itself, pretty sure he had no plans to patent it originally. And even if he did, I don't think it could do anything to stop Bitcoin from being valued by users who see its value.

What aspects changed?!!!
Ever since bitcoin, the only thing the subsequent projects changed were the amount of money the creators could make from their creation with premines, ICO fundraising, scamming, shadow mining, centralization, etc. Many of the changes, specially those at protocol level, made things less secure!
I'm very curious to know what you think has changed that made things "safer".

I have not seen a single case of a ban or even talk of ban (with no action) that were because of price volatility. Every case I've seen has been because bitcoin is decentralized and they can't control it


Obviously not! It lacks three of the main principle of bitcoin: decentralization, immutability and limited supply.

What aspects are there? You are again speaking in vague terms without naming the "aspects".

Not at all.
It only attracted governments to fight the money laundering through NFTs, DeFi, ICO and similar tokens with different names.
It also attracted gamblers who want to participate in pump and dumping shitcoins.

Considering the fact that bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that works as it should and the rest are either weak or useless you should know the answer to your question already!

Yes fees would be lowered. However id the banks would still have control over it then its contradincting Satoshi goal to have a more decentralized aspect. Probably banks would never go for it without giving up the central system. They could do one but still they will still regulate it no matter what. Thats the one thing bitcoin advantage to them since they cant beat how decentralized is it.

Yes. It's all we want for the side of the government, however. But for the people, it's not going to be what they want because the CBDC includes legislation where if you participate in funding Ottawa truckers, your account will be frozen. If the government sees you become obese for you are not just a regular cheeseburger eater, they reduce your funds to cut your BigMac funds.

Smart contracts, Defi and NFT are good products until SEC will have to stop them. Anyone received the BLOCKFI email already? They are fined to pay 100M for giving out interest.

Satoshi gives people an alternative to the current monetary system, BTC is enough but because it's opensource, blockchain opens a lot more for everyone, late investor or not.

Blockchain is not all about Bitcoin which is not a first one to be created in history but Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency which is successfully with peer-to-peer transactions on a really decentralized network.

The idea to set up total supply at 21M and halving every 4 years by Satoshi Nakamoto are very great. They are one of fundamentals make Bitcoin is different and more valuable than altcoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).

Smart contracts initiated by Ethereum and Vitalik Buterin, not by Bitcoin and Satoshi Nakamoto. NFT is a trend which inititated since 2020 and it takes more years for NFT technology to be verified by the market and society.

No, it won't be.

It is not blockchain per se that is the central player here. If it is, then Bitcoin, alternate cryptocurrencies like the shitcoins and the meme coins that are proliferating nowadays, NFTs, and CBDCs are all equal. But they are not. Bitcoin's blockchain is different to that of Dogecoin's blockchain or a CBDCs blockchain or a certain bank's blockchain or a private company's blockchain. It's the set of blockchain rules that matters. It's decentralization that matters.

Not really, his identity isn't a big concern anymore. He innovated and people are enjoying it. He won't reveal his identity anymore. He'll not go for a pattern, because he developed it as an open source and the main objective is to give financial freedom to the common people. Now what he aimed is slowly taking place and he won't disturb it. Going through the beginning statements from the Bitcoin White paper abstract. It is clearly mentioned of having a peer to peer version of electronic cash which is bitcoin and later it is also said how this happens. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash based proof of work which is the blockchain. So it is about bitcoin and blockchain.

It is right that he will not patent but it is wrong that if he appeared then it will harm bitcoin or harm himself. Everyone love him and his work and everyone know that now it is decentralized no matter he come or not. If he come to public then people will give more love and respect to him. If he will appear that it will not be the end of crypto and this industry but he will bring more blessing for this industry and people.

Impossible. Real Satoshi won't ever have the idea to appear, he decided to let this be decentralized. He also will harm himself and the existence of Bitcoin if he braves to appear. He has done a hard job so far and hides his identity perfectly, he won't ruin it by appearing one day. If he really appears, it may be the end of Bitcoin and crypto industry.

It is really too late right now and in copyright cases anything can happen but I am sure that he will not do that because of the reasons which I mentioned above. He has developed a new style system and the patent will just erode its this feature then it will mean nothing to file a patent.

obviously it has many many many disadvantages over bitcoin. i listed a few..

but governments are trying to go "cashless" meaning its not going to be a paper cash + digital cash + CBDC... its just going to be CBDC

but like i also said if it went full 'bank authorised' both in registration and payment sign off. then all 'cash' features are gone. which is the negatives of CBDC

there would need to be a way for people to make their own independent keys with no banker multisig to retain some "cash" features

---

its too late..

bitcoin went public in 2009 and got good wide public use in 2010. whereby satoshi would have ran out of time (grace period) to file a patent

that said even in 2009 he wanted it open and public, he didnt want to patent it.
and even now he wont gain anything if it were even possible to patent it.

If satoshi will appear and will do a patent for blockchain then he himself will harm the purpose of him behind blockchain, which he will not do. His thought was to make it decentralized and I think he kept his promise and from his side it is still decentralized. Filing a patent will make this centralized to him and I know he will not do that because everyone love his idea and everyone love to maintain his idea when it is implemented.

You can't compare those two, they are apple and oranges even if that sounds strange.

Central bank digital currencies are going to replace cash, they won't be an alternative to a digitally represented fiat. A transaction that is done via your bank is an IOU-based. CBDCs won't have any difference from cash other than humiliatingly bad privacy. So, it should be properer to say that CBDCs have disadvantages over, say Bitcoin.

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