Topic: Looking back at the White paper... Do you think Satoshi would be proud of us? - page 3. (Read 762 times)

Yes, you are right. People have to reveal their identity especially when they intend to cash out their profit or buy bitcoin with fiat. But that's not the problem of bitcoin. That's the problem of fiat money and strict rules made by governments.
I think Satoshi is satisfied now. Many people are using bitcoin and the number of people is increasing. Till now, everything has gone well.

How can you know? Does this come from some research or is this just your feeling? Because I'm not so sure that majority of Bitcoin users use online wallets and payment processors.
And exchanges are not entirely a bad thing, Bitcoin would be far worse if the only way to buy was in person for cash - people would get robbed and even killed quite often. People are using Bitcoin as a currency, they just don't talk about it, while those who are in for profits are talking about trading and price all the time.

I think overall Satoshi would be proud how big the Bitcoin community has grew, how good the codebase has become, how the network is stable and resilient.

It is ridiculous to say that free transactions that hold users through third parties are not possible in the trade. Transnational transactions keep the users too risky because one of them will go against the covenants.

That's key. We all need to be faced with the consequences of our actions to realize what we are doing is wrong.

If centralized services do everything the right way, offer people exactly that what they are asking for, why should people not (yet) caring about decentralization value trustlessness? In the same way, the regular system kept pushing the buttons of most hardcore Bitcoiners long enough till they started to develop an anti government sentiment, which is why Bitcoin is the alternative of choice for them.

The only reason Bitcoin is a thing is because of how rotten the current system is, and I'm glad to say that more people start to figure that out. The far majority of the crypto enthusiasts will always prefer gains over decentralization, but that's their choice. They will eventually find out why Bitcoin is something worth looking into. It just takes time.

Yeah, at least I don't know anyone who doesn't use a wallet to send bitcoins. To be honest, I actually didn't know it was possible until this post.
If we are talking about third parties, let's also mention escrow services without which many are not feeling like doing any business... We surely messed up with the trustless transactions, but I think it's not that bad in comparison with other issues. The first one is that most of people are not really performing many transactions with bitcoin, but are holders. Money ain't good when it's not used. Those who do use it, though, are mainly traders that buy and sell only for some fiat profit, which is imo even worse.

I think Satoshi had expected what is happening now. Satoshi created something innovative and very useful for payment. Given the benefits that bitcoin have, the high demand and price was normal.
I think the true statement is that " Satoshi is now proud of himself " He has created something that the value has increased more than 100,000 times.
I am sure, even if bitcoin won't be a global currency, a currency based on blockchain technology will be the greatest currency all over the world.

It is a bit disappointing, though not surprising. The fact is that most people don't particularly desire the kind of freedom that Bitcoin provides, and furthermore they can't handle it (eg. secure key management). But the most important thing is that anyone can use Bitcoin trustlessly if they want. Maybe some of the people who are getting exposed to Bitcoin through centralized services will eventually move toward trustlessness over time. (Though maybe only after getting repeatedly burned by the costs of trust...) The biggest key to decreasing trusted-service-use is IMO in making it far easier and cheaper to do so securely. For example, cheap, secure, and trustless hardware wallets and point-of-sale terminals would go a long way.

I do not think that Satoshi Nakamoto would be proud of the current use of Bitcoin mainly as a speculative means of accumulating value. Satoshi wanted his bitcoin as an alternative payment system. As a payment system, Bitcoin is almost never used. But by this time, due to speculation in the market, the price of Bitcoin was increased to $ 20,000. Even now it costs over $ 6,000. Did Satoshi want his bitcoin to be practically unaffordable for ordinary people? I do not think.
It remains to hope that after the legalization of Bitcoin and another cryptocurrency and the creation of a proper infrastructure, Bitcoin will still be used more as a means of payment.

The reason why people using more exchanges than exchanging between two individual is bitcoin has been considered as investment among the peoplw even most of the old crypto investors were looking more money not to make the direct payments.But I don't say e are crushing the dream of satoshi,it keeps evolving among the people in this centralized war zone when people think they are controlled by third person as money they will start to use bitcoin.

the fact that more people are using custodial services is just like what happened with gold in the 16th century.
people putting gold in kings control and then kings giving using tally sticks (mysql database balances)

next evolution is eltoo factories. which are like bank vaults and fort knox where gold gets locked up in a factory's multisig(fortknox requiring their permission to get out)

those factories then hand out 12decimal un-chained unaudited transactions (promissory notes(bank notes)) which people then use as proof of value inside channels(accounts) and they co-sign ownership of who deserves value of these 12 decimal values.
which to get out real 8 decimal bitcoin back to blockchain transacting needs sending the 12 decimal transactions out of a channel(closing) and then offchain sending it back to a factory and requesting the factory to withdraw a 8dcimal transaction

many people dont realise the issues of the plans LN has. and if bitcoin devs keep making bitcoin less bitcoin onchain friendly (stalling onchain scaling and removing fee reductions to cause people to beleive handling real bitcoin is bad, heavy,, expensive (yea they call block size 'weight' for a reason and they multiply the transaction size by 4 to be 4times the 'weight' for a reason. to make people follow the 19th century plan of throwing funds into a fortnox and playing with promissory notes and not want to handle real bitcoins.

and we know what happened in the 20th century where the gold standard changed and those promissory notes became less promising (look how tether turned out.. no longer 1:! as an example of how quick things change)

alot of people say dont worry its voluntary to use LN. but if you watch all the advertising PR overpromising and actual code changes done purely to make LN look better than just using the btc network. you can see how things are moving AWAY from satoshi's vision

but now expect the usual crew that love the idea of LN and want LN to rule. to come swooping in with insults and fun about how LN is great and how im just wrong because im wrong... (facepalm)
P.S LN is a separate network that is not a pur bitcoin feature. but a separate system for multiple coins that have become or may become LN compatible (LN was not designd to be bitcoin compatible... bitcoin was altered to be LN compatible, same with LTC and other altcoins too

...
nowwith all that said. if bitcoins protocol keeps getting changed to sway people that using bitcoin onchain is bad, useless, slow, expensive, heavy, not scalable etc... then yes bitcoin has lost its path that satoshi set

I seriously doubt that the majority of the tx's are done directly between parties, like you mentioned. Source please.    If we give merchants the power to dictate how tx's must be done, then direct payments will be a thing of the past. The customers must dictate the methods that are being used by the merchants.

A while ago, I wanted to buy something expensive for my partner and the merchant only wanted to do the transaction via a reputable payment processor. I offered to buy a smaller item as a direct payment and they accepted and after that, they allowed me to pay the bitcoins directly into their Bitcoin address.  

This is the main barrier to universal use of crypto. It's not entirely decentralized and we have yet to benefit from an entirely decentralized method of exchange because we're still dependent on centralized exchanges.

There are ICO's that are proposing distributed exchange networks that will eliminate the need for exchanges, and i think Satoshi, whoever he is, would be happy to see that.

Probably not in my opinion. Bitcoin has improved technically and has been adopted in a huge manner compared to last year alone. If anything, Satoshi might probably be surprised on how Bitcoin spread so fast to the masses in a decade alone.

About the bitcoin factions(BTC vs BCH), knowing that bitcoin is decentralized, Satoshi probably saw this coming. Without a CEO and the community deciding on the updates, different opinions and different views from people are to be expected.

We haven't really strayed too far from what Satoshi envisioned in his whitepaper. For all we know, majority of transactions happening within the whole network is in between two parties; the essence of trust-less payments still lives and decentralization is still very evident from what we can observe. Also, third-party payment processors are only options in case the merchant wants to convert to cash immediately, and there are no rules enforcing people to use concierges whatsoever in general transactions.

Fear not, we haven't disappointed Satoshi--at least not yet.  

So Franky
In relation to the OP's question

What's your take on it

??!
how many users got affected by true private key hard bruteforcing.. dare i say it none
how many users got affected by exchange 'hacks' (mtgox, crtypsy, cryptorush, mintpal, bitcoinica, .. list goes on).. millions

bitcoin security is more secure than exchanges

but users decision and trust are the issue where the users throwing funds at people they do not investigate, do due diligence of or research who they are throwing funds at are the problem.
thats not a bitcoin fault/issue. thats a human fault of just giving strangers funds and strangers greed of taking funds.

again even the exchange/escrow can be the thief too

bitcoin rule one:
if funds are not on a private key you have full/sole control of, they aint your coins

I doubt if we actually did deviate from satoshi's original idea, even if literally we aren't going by his exact words or proposals/postulations..

It's evident why cryptocurrency users the world over shun trading directly with individuals,and you can't really blame them, because as the birth of this genius technology was announced,so also the scammers stepped up their game, in a bid to enrich themselves and impoverish their victims

The system was created to be pseudo--anonymous,with very little details of tracking anyone
I think it really hasn't been our fault,but I blame fraudulent individuals out there who make trust a word that doesn't exist in this system

Exchanges make it a bit safer for users to trade,with at least a reduced risk involved
Users most times also trade on decentralized exchanges,which is more or less direct business

I for one wouldn't overlook the risk involved in direct trade, in order to fulfil what's written in the whitepaper
Never trade directly with an individual without a third party Trusted escrow service..
That's the sad truth now

"What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.": Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper is 10 years old today!

Hardly anyone are making Bitcoin payments without going through some kind of centralized third party, like payment processors and exchanges or wallet providers.

Satoshi wanted us to use Bitcoin directly between two willing parties, without any intermediary services.

Do you think these services are crushing Satoshi's original dreams and goals for this technology or did we just evolve to satisfy the requirements of the governments that wants to control this technology. 

Do we need to go back to the original vision for this technology or do we continue on this new path?