Topic: Could Satoshi come back and tell us what he/her thinks about the block size? - page 2. (Read 6347 times)

Its bumped up to 15.2% but 30.3% think that every BTC user should vote. If someone then puts a voting feature in the wallet software - it appears many would be happy with that, going by stats. But only 33 people have voted... and that's not reassuring for any poll.

He was ahead of his time, or ahead of most IT people, anyway.

But his last posts show no indication of him stepping away, he just stopped logging in one day.

Very curious to know what happened to him. Is anyone able to confirm that he's alright?

BLASPHEMY!

His public key is public dude.

Well,according to your poll, 14% seem to be following the Way of the Satoshi. In this crowd, I'd say that's quite a lot.

No, there is something called GPG key

I had a poll with satoshi decide option, seems not so many people support it
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-do-you-make-decisions-for-a-change-in-btc-protocal-140516

Here's the very basic problem with this.  I am Satoshi Nakamoto...   here is what we MUST do going forward.  Now who believes me and who doesn't??  Am I really Satoshi or not?  and who's going to prove it conclusively?

For the record - if it's not 100% obvious, no I'm not REALLY claiming to be Satoshi but anyone who did would face doubters, even if they resurrected Satoshi's old bitcointalk forum account.  (could be a hacker etc)

Awww, I was thinking the same thing, but you beat me to it. 
It is interesting, on the one side Bitcoin is attracting the libertarian and crypto-anarchist crowd, but we also got the religious zealots just looking for a Leader to submit their will to. 

What makes you think Satoshi has more insight than any of the devs? Regardless, I'm sure he's keeping up with the development.


Yes. There is no apparent reason for miners to refrain from adjusting fees in accordance with mining costs. The only problem is about communicating these fees to users without involving centralization.


If we need an authority to resolve these issues, we're doomed.

If I can continue to run a node myself with a modest budget, even with an elastic blocksize, then I'm for it. It seems that way for now. It was apparent from the beginning that the ordinary user wouldn't be able to run a full node when Bitcoin got popular. As long as hobbyists and ordinary businesses still can, we'll be fine.


I think Satoshi client will have three modes. One lightweight mode that only downloads potentially relevant transactions, one pruned mode that only keeps a compact database of unspent transactions, and one full mode that keeps everything. People that can handle traffic but not storage will be able to run in the compact mode and they will still be capable of fully validating transactions.

I remember that these issues were hashed over and over since before Satoshi disappeared. Actually, there was a scientific paper about this subject not long ago, though AFAIK it focused on relaying traffic.

It seems to me that there will always be enough incentive for serious entities involved with Bitcoin to run a full node. We don't need them to validate transactions, but for other things, like notarization or firstbits addresses.

This debate on the maximum block size is getting more religious everyday. Now we beg the Creator for His Second Coming, or at least to speak to His prophet here on earth to tell us, humble mortals, how we should deal with this issue. And if He doesn't come soon, we will get into a debate on how we should interpret His Holy Scriptures.

He's already given his opinion. If he'd changes his mind, I suspect he'd get the word out.

If Satoshi came back, half the board would tell him he didn't understand what "Bitcoin was meant to be" and that he was doing it all wrong.

I am going to try and say this in the nicest way I can possible. I hope Satoshi doesn't inject his/her/their opinion, this would give bitcoin more creditability that it can stand on it's own, and grow. I think Satoshi gave us the tools, now we have to just implement and figure out these little details.

On that note Gavin can you tell us what you think  hehe...

Considering the amount of brain power that's gone into thinking about the block size, I highly doubt that "Satoshi" would have a unique insight that hasn't been thought of. It's a difficult problem.

A wise vendor one said, "No news is good news!"

Ahh, that is nice heart warming thought

I hope Satoshi isn't dead or locked away. His disappearance was a bit sudden wasn't it?

I'm sure that if Satoshi had the need to inject some valuable input, he would contact Gavin. And, who's to say he hasn't done such already.

If anyone knows Satoshi, getting him/her to come back for a little to see what they think about the block size issue we currently have.

As far as I can tell 3 things stand to eventually destroy Bitcoin and allow another currency to take over.

1. Will transaction fees be enough to secure the network forever? Will miners make enough from TX fee's?
    This is important because everyone gives a different answer, from TX mining will be plenty profitable to Bitcoin will not function properly after 2140.

2. The blocksize issue, This is causing a divide, it would be nice if Satoshi came here and described what he/her thinks would be best.

3. The Satoshi clients needs to have a option to only download the past months worth of blocks, with maybe the network rewarding those who keep full nodes working.