Topic: How liberal was Satoshi Nakamoto? (Read 273 times)

Many 1 megabyte blocks were filled to only 25% or less capacity.

Partially filled blocks was the real culprit behind lag in transaction volume.

My question:

• What did you think made Satoshi keep the block at 1mb and did not consider to change it?

I'd like to think that one of the reasons why Satoshi went away was so that people stop focusing on what he thinks about bitcoin. You see, bitcoin is a decentralized currency that doesn't have one centralized authority deciding what opinion matters and what doesn't. The whole network does.

Liberal in my context does not even come close to the political, religious plane but rather guides me to other senses... but look where the OP clarifies it. Ty

Oxford dictionary says Liberal is "the willingness to understand and respect other people's opinions, especially when it differs from yours".
That I why I used the word. Because it seems Satoshi was not willing to understand others opinions in the thread above. That is where I drew my title from.

Oxford dictionary says Liberal is "the willingness to understand and respect other people's opinions, especially when it differs from yours".
That I why I used the word. Because it seems Satoshi was not willing to understand others opinions in the thread above. That is where I drew my title from.

Oxford dictionary says Liberal is "the willingness to understand and respect other people's opinions, especially when it differs from yours".
That I why I used the word. Because it seems Satoshi was not willing to understand others opinions in the thread above. That is where I drew my title from.

what does this technical question have to do with satoshi's political stance (liberal or otherwise)?

What made me to question how liberal Satoshi was is, after reading this reply by caveden he didn’t change his decision.
My question:

• What did you think made Satoshi keep the block at 1mb and did not consider to change it?
• In his statement “if we get closer to needing it, we will phase it”. Will there be a time for such change again, or it has been done already?

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.