Topic: Could the bitcoin crisis be one of master plans of Satoshi? - page 2. (Read 1696 times)
yes, the price is also going down because of this
Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone?
No. He just never imagined that intelligent development would come screeching to a halt the moment he left.
~~
(hint: change the damn constant until you have a better idea ready.)
I see people on here being asses to the female half of humankind every so often, and I'd like to remind them that we don't even know which half of humankind Satoshi was a member of.
Thankyou.
I see people on here being asses to the female half of humankind every so often, and I'd like to remind them that we don't even know which half of humankind Satoshi was a member of.
FWIW, the first dev version of Bitcoin from Satoshi that I saw didn't even have a block size limit at all. So, I'd pretty emphatically say this crisis wasn't her idea.
Putting a limit on the block size was Hal Abelson's idea, because he was running down that standard list of threats and got to "Denial of Service."
It was considered a temporary measure, just to prevent stupid stuff from happening. At the time bitcoin was still sort of imaginary nerd money and some 4chan troll would likely have tried to spike it with an impossible-to-store block chain just for the lulz. None of us ever imagined it would become this point of contention.
Putting a limit on the block size was Hal Abelson's idea, because he was running down that standard list of threats and got to "Denial of Service."
It was considered a temporary measure, just to prevent stupid stuff from happening. At the time bitcoin was still sort of imaginary nerd money and some 4chan troll would likely have tried to spike it with an impossible-to-store block chain just for the lulz. None of us ever imagined it would become this point of contention.
Yeah.
Now it is core (are hoping) insurance of segwit adoption.
"this crisis wasn't her idea" - Nice touch.
FWIW, the first dev version of Bitcoin from Satoshi that I saw didn't even have a block size limit at all. So, I'd pretty emphatically say this crisis wasn't her idea.
Putting a limit on the block size was Hal Finney's idea, because he was running down that standard list of threats and got to "Denial of Service."
It was considered a temporary measure, just to prevent stupid stuff from happening. At the time bitcoin was still sort of imaginary nerd money and some 4chan troll would likely have tried to spike it with an impossible-to-store block chain just for the lulz. None of us ever imagined it would become this point of contention.
Putting a limit on the block size was Hal Finney's idea, because he was running down that standard list of threats and got to "Denial of Service."
It was considered a temporary measure, just to prevent stupid stuff from happening. At the time bitcoin was still sort of imaginary nerd money and some 4chan troll would likely have tried to spike it with an impossible-to-store block chain just for the lulz. None of us ever imagined it would become this point of contention.
bitcoin needs to go mainstream but it cannot go
Doesn't need "mainstream", just organic growth would do me.
The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
I am also in favour of a blocksize increase. It could have been a small increase introduced by Core. But any mention of such logic is scoffed at as Classic shilling. (yeah classic rekt thread full of childish presumption, self rightiousness)
1mb as a "limit" it's quite ridiculous.
Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits, they feel shameful to tell this , so they identify themselves as vanguards of bitcoin principles such as decentralization, as it favors large centralized miners. A classic example of how self interest can hamper the very own thing that they are working upon. Developers also join this bandwagon.
Not sure that is correct. Miners will follow the profit, there are other ways. Sudden change is not an impossibility.
Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone?
Didn't he foresee how sudden consensus in a crisis could be the norm?
Core's segwit imposed as a soft fork is an attack on bitcoin and will be exposed as such.
Miners are playing ball with Core atm, but will not hang around in "a real crisis".
(coming soon either via stoneage block congestion or segwit bugs. not sure what may come first)
If the only option out of the next price collapse is Classic, so be it. The miners will have no option.
I don't think satoshi had envisioned half of what would happen to bitcoin. He limited the block size as a temporary measure, it's unlikely he planned for the consequences years later. Similarly i doubt he realised the CIA would ask Gavin to give a bitcoin presentation to them, but they did.
bitcoin needs to go mainstream but it cannot go
The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
...
The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
...
Which ones? The ones invested in Blockstream are probably happy with small blocks, or don't give much shit about it.
...
Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits...
Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits...
Last time I checked most miners wanted block increase. That's why (some of the) Core devs agreed to 2mb hardfork after SegWit during HK agreement.
blockstream also want big blocks.. but im guessing you have fallen for the icebreaker misdirect..
you really should look at some code some time. and see that as of 2017 blockstream will he happy that core is making blocks with potential of over 5mb in size.. even though it only offers an estimated 7600 transactions..(1tx:657byte)
as oppose to the original plans of 2015 which was 2mb for 5000 (1tx:400byte)
note: standard tx today is actually about 400byte average.. the misconception of 250byte is not todays reality anymore... but certainly better than blockstreams future feature filled tx's of over 650-750bytes
which ofcourse even forgetting the extra 250byte bloat for all of blockstreams features.. blockstream suggesting all of their features are network safe means that 5mb of standard old fashioned transactions would have been safe too offering potential 12500 transactions per block.. as oppose to blockstreams 7600tx for the same amount of data transmission
kind of funny how the last years drama has worked to sway people into such a stupid saga of a one way roadmap of bloat..
but i will now wait to see the usual suspects throw insults and no stats to try to sway people that blockstream is better then sliced bread and anything i say holds no water..
Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone?
Are you claiming that Satoshi Nakamoto is a real life Hari Seldon? I think not. Sorry, Satoshi Nakamoto is just a person. She is not a god, nor a super-hero, nor even a super-genius.
I highly, highly doubt that there is any sort of crisis that Satoshi is the master of. The 1mb was most likely designed around the lack of a need for a larger block size during the initial stages of Bitcoin, and thus it was just an initial design feature that we're likely going to have to change at some point soon.
There was no point having double the blocksize (and subsequently double the data) during the first years of Bitcoin, and it makes sense since we are only now starting to fill the blocks to capacity.
There was no point having double the blocksize (and subsequently double the data) during the first years of Bitcoin, and it makes sense since we are only now starting to fill the blocks to capacity.
bitcoin needs to go mainstream but it cannot go
You can buy pizza,weed,vape,drugs with bitcoins. Isn't it mainstream already ?The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
Corporate and companies are only trying to centralize bitcoins.Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone?
Don't know where that is coming from .Doesn't make sense.You can buy pizza,weed,vape,drugs with bitcoins. Isn't it mainstream already ?
oh common can u do that in Africa and INdia?
bitcoin needs to go mainstream but it cannot go
You can buy pizza,weed,vape,drugs with bitcoins. Isn't it mainstream already ?The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
Corporate and companies are only trying to centralize bitcoins.Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone?
Don't know where that is coming from .Doesn't make sense. 
If bitcoin doesn't go mainstream it will be stucked at the price of 400-450$ forever or maybe less. Because in time more people will get sick of stable prices and leave bitcoin. (Sounds like a ponzi lol)
Bitcoin needs to reach more people. Bitcoin is like a company. If it doesn't grow, it will shrink.
Bitcoin needs to reach more people. Bitcoin is like a company. If it doesn't grow, it will shrink.
http://listverse.com/2009/07/19/10-useful-inventions-that-went-bad/
No, he couldn't have possibly predicted that bitcoin will become so big that people will start fighting with each other for self gains, or that it will be used by criminals. He was a scientist, he invented something great but as explained in the link above, we as humans have tendency to fuck everything up.
Tl;dr, Don't blame the inventor for it.
No, he couldn't have possibly predicted that bitcoin will become so big that people will start fighting with each other for self gains, or that it will be used by criminals. He was a scientist, he invented something great but as explained in the link above, we as humans have tendency to fuck everything up.
Tl;dr, Don't blame the inventor for it.
bitcoin needs to go mainstream but it cannot go
The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
...
The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
...
Which ones? The ones invested in Blockstream are probably happy with small blocks, or don't give much shit about it.
...
Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits...
Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits...
Last time I checked most miners wanted block increase. That's why (some of the) Core devs agreed to 2mb hardfork after SegWit during HK agreement.
bitcoin needs to go mainstream but it cannot go
The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits, they feel shameful to tell this , so they identify themselves as vanguards of bitcoin principles such as decentralization, as it favors large centralized miners. A classic example of how self interest can hamper the very own thing that they are working upon. Developers also join this bandwagon.
Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone?
The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change.
Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits, they feel shameful to tell this , so they identify themselves as vanguards of bitcoin principles such as decentralization, as it favors large centralized miners. A classic example of how self interest can hamper the very own thing that they are working upon. Developers also join this bandwagon.
Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone?
Jump to: