Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog).
It's not clear to me that satoshi willingly set 1 MB as something that was part of a bigger plan involving a dead end which would force a settlement network to take place, I believe the official statement (that is, that he lowered the 32 MB limit to 1 MB to avoid spam, temporarily). This doesn't mean I buy into the "blocks-as-big-as-needed" approach by altcoin scammers, neither im saying we need a blocksize increase.
Basically, it was set to 1MB, and by the time one wanted to increase it, it was too late, as attempts would result in ugly uncoordinated splits generating altcoins as a result. Once he set 1MB it was set in stone, the question is if he was aware of this or not back then. I believe people often overrate satoshi's long term thinking on his own creation, he was discovering what it would become along the way, with the rest of the people involved since the early days, or maybe you are right and it was part of the plan, but im not willing to clam I knew his intentions with 100% certainty.
It's worth noting that Hal Finney was aware of the "settlement network fate" back in 2010, I don't know if any other big names saw that as well. It very well could be that Hal was satoshi and he knew, but didn't want to claim that as satoshi; then again that's all speculation.
My understanding was that Hal Finney was pretty much the driving force behind the implementation of the 1MB cap. Contrary to what anonymong is saying, Satoshi was quite reluctant to even consider the idea at first. It was Finney's original idea to implement a limit and he had lengthy debates about it with Satoshi and Cryddit. Finney eventually got his way and the cap was introduced. If Satoshi and Finney
were the same person, he was either a brilliant actor or a bona fide schizophrenic. Neither seem plausible to me. Particularly with that level of healthy discourse between them.
I believe that, in each other, Satoshi and Finney found someone they could bounce ideas off and get the other person's perspective. Something that isn't all that effective if you're talking to yourself.
Perma-bans are badges we wear with great pride, because they indicate we were resisting the idiocy.
a) That's the exact opposite of what it indicates
b) You should demonstrate your great pride by not registering 25613146 alts to flout it
I believe both arguments are equally valid:
1) Satoshi was unaware of some of the ramifications of taking certain decisions long term, he was not certain that the 1MB cap would be set in stone, but he did certainly predict people being against it:
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring. It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.
If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.
Satoshi was/were clearly very smart, but im not sure if he had absolute knowledge of every possible outcome on a 10+ year timeline, or at least being able to predict that whatever his/their goal was would be reached.
2) Satoshi was/were absolutely aware of everything and it's all part of a big plan.
Both scenarios are possible, but we can only speculate about it.
Rothchild-grade fortunes and whatnot being involved, it could or it couldn't be. I haven't seen enough evidence personally other than speculation.
I also think anunymin shouldn't be banned again, he brings interesting points of view not often discussed. I would like to see gmaxwell, LukeJr, Adam Back, Peter Wiulle, Matt Corallo... posting here more often and less often on Reddit. As far as I remember, their stance was that the "anyonecanspend" attack would never happen due basically lack of miner incentive to do so, they consider it as an impossible out of theory.
