Topic: Satoshi Nakamoto: "Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa Network" - page 14. (Read 18415 times)

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

By the number of users who want scale Bitcoin to keep Bitcoin as pay2pay decentralized system with onchain transactions affordable versus Bitcoin as just settlement layer for more or less centralized offchain services, Im sure the dark side cannot win and original Satoshi Bitcoin vision will be followed with Bitcoin project.

If we scale onchain limit, people can still choose offchain centralized services if these are really better than onchain transactions, so why cap the blocksize limit to force people to these offchain centralized services  Are you affraid Blockstream there is no real demand for such offchain centralized services among Bitcoin users 

this is probably the most important discussion in the bitcoin world.


scalability is crucial if we want bitcoin to survive!

You said Visa works perfectly, so let's use that.

That wasn't my point (and you know it).

I leave the source of the quote as an exercise.

Doing Not, would just be anti-agile and retarded....

Let's just look at that and think about how much we should actually consider reading anything else that you might have to post.

Hmm... nope - not worth reading anything further IMO (unable to make any sense in only two lines of text as you contradicted yourself that quickly).

We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.

Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.
Issue #2: The transactions that have a decent fee are reliable.
Issue #3: Fees are very small compared to the amounts transacted, how would they hinder adoption?
Issue #4: Why does Bitcoin need "adoption", if it damages it's qualities? If you want "adoption", you want to get rich quick. Greed is bad.
Issue #5: They say this since many months, hasn't happened.

Whatever his mistakes in what he said back in the day, he is still a brilliant entity. {He / She / It / They} If he made no mistakes, I would have classed him as a alien or a god, but he is human. The

scaled block size are there for a reason... to grow with adoption and to be adapted as the need exists. Classic proponents wants us to believe, that need is NOW and Core followers seem to think, kicking

the can down the road, will be the best option to follow. I think, the doubt about scaling solutions are a bigger threat than the actual change that needs to be done to address the current need.  

Bitcoin cannot scale to work like VISA with the way it works because VISA isn't doing POW nor are its nodes designed to not trust one another.

If you want to use VISA - why not use VISA?
(it's already there and it works perfectly right now)

Assumption #1 from 2009 : By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10.
If this assumption is on track, then, by now, hardware speed should be 25 times faster than in 2009. Is Satoshi correct on this one?

Assumption #2 from 2009: 1 MINER = 1 NODE (all miners run full nodes and all full nodes are mining)
Is Satoshi correct on this one?

Assumption #3 from 2009: Best mining technology will be GPU's.
Is Satoshi correct on this one?

If all 3 assumptions made in 2009 by Satoshi are correct, then Bitcoin may scale like VISA. Otherwise, Satoshi is wrong and it may not scale the way it was originally intended to.

Let's elaborate on the scenarios:
#1 correct, #2 correct, #3 correct: Bitcoin scales like VISA, yay!!
#1 correct, #2 correct, #3 incorrect: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but only miners with ASIC's have nodes => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 correct, #2 incorrect, #3 correct: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but nodes are run only by volunteers, miners don't exactly need them => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 correct, #2 incorrect, #3 incorrect: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but a few mining pools and ASIC farms remain, nodes are ran mainly by volunteers => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 correct, #3 correct: The miners with the fastest CPU's and bandwith get an increasing advantage as Bitcoin scales, eventually few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 correct, #3 incorrect: The miners with the best ASIC's and bandwith get an increasing advantage as Bitcoin scales, eventually few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 incorrect, #3 correct: As Bitcoin scales, nodes ran by volunteers disappear, only a few nodes ran by some of the miners remain = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 incorrect, #3 incorrect: As Bitcoin scales, nodes ran by volunteers disappear, only a few nodes ran by some big ASIC farms or mining pools remain = centralization = bad

So, if Satoshi is wrong on one of the 3 assumptions, then we have to trade "scaling" with "centralization". VISA is already scaled and centralized. So, if we scale Bitcoin like this, then Bitcoin becomes just like VISA, or an inefficient competitor to VISA.

What about the recent unexpected fork in SegWig testbed then?
When you find unexpected bug in your code, my experience says test everything twice again to reduce the chance every part of code can not contain bug in unusual circumstances you did not foresee but is possible.

PS: Not all 500 lines are equally complicated to test

Moore's law has actually begun to fall down in a number of ways (perhaps "storage" being the only one that now still stands even though initially it was only supposed to refer to computing power).

This has been in part due to the 3GHz limit that CPUs can operate at (without requiring seriously expensive cooling) and the fact that bandwidth has actually never even followed such a trend (instead it tends to jump every few years by quite a bit but then stagnate for quite a while after that).

Most improvements in processing speed these days are made through multi-threading (which can be applied to block validation) but that doesn't help when you are doing serialisation of information.

You can read his thoughts in the opening post, although they are
subject to different interpretations.

Bandwidth is just one factor in validation.

Satoshi had profound insight into systemic dynamics, and I wouldn't
hesitate to call him a genius. But I don't think he was omniscient.

Actually that is rubbish - the amount of code for SegWit is around 500 lines (which is not very much as I often write that much in a day) and it has been in testing for months.

Stop trying to shill for Bitcoin Classic - it is just another attempt by Gavin to take over control of Bitcoin.

Gavin is hoping that everyone is going to want to see "The Return Of The King" but I think that most of us actually would prefer to listen to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Kings.

Miners need to be sure the market accept the fork change - the ten-hundred thousands of individual Bitcoin miners act overall rationally after all, thats why no rush change is likely unless something needs to be fixed immediately.



The changes to the code/structures are so big with SegWit, much more testing is necessary. Fortunatelly Bitcoin Classic does not have plans for SegWit in near future, thus the likelihood of SegWit activation this year is small - but it is good thing - enought time for proper testing for bugless implementation.

I hope you are right (and do think that it is more likely that Bitcoin will get through this tough time and end up even more resilient because of that).

If that schedule actually happens that's great. Maybe I just have too much faith in Bitcoin. I don't think it can be broken or destroyed that easily. Even by someone as self important and manipulative as Andresen.