Topic: Satoshi's original idea... (Read 1339 times)

I think Satoshi understood that as the people begin to use Bitcoin more and more, then he will have more and more problems with scalability and speculation.

Basically, Sotoshi's aim was to bring to the world a peer-to-peer cash system. Recently, we are very far away from this aim and people have to pay fees in order to make transaction of their crypto assets. Like banks, some people jumped this idea and gaining money for transactions. If you read about history of money transfer services, you will understand what I mean. I think, there will always be a boundary or mediator between two parties whichever they are called like western union, EFT system of banks, miners...

Forget about the original idea. Does it have anything to do with reality?

This will encourage mining and the difficulty should be adjusted down when the miners close. As a result, the cost of mining will decrease. That's why it does not make much sense to focus on current mining costs: it tune up and down based on speculation and profit.

Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoin as a payment instrument that was decentralized and the system worked in a peer to peer manner. The technology used is blockchain, revolutionizing the workings of transactions that have been carried out for years. Even blockchain is called the biggest discovery after the internet.

This is the problem with your "argument" (in the loosest possible sense of the word).  You act like there is only one codebase.  If there was only one codebase and no one was able to make another one, in that scenario you might actually have a point, because that would indeed mean users don't have control.  They'd have no choice to run what that one dev team have created.  That would be a horrible outcome for Bitcoin and I would fight that outcome to my dying breath.  But that's not what we have.  Any user, or group of users, can start their own codebase because the code is open source and Bitcoin is totally permissionless.  Everyone is free to create a client that enforces any rules they like.  If someone else doesn't like what those people are making, too bad.  You can't stop people from coding what they want.  None of your mental flailings change this simple fact.

Questions
1.  If you didn't have choice as a user, how are you running a client that isn't made by Core right now?  
2.  If you think all developers have to agree, how are you going to prevent a pool from launching a competing chain like ViaBTC did?

Answers
1.  Users clearly do have a choice and your position is untenable.  You are running a client that wasn't made by Core.  Any user can run any code they want.  It is a level playing field.
2.  There's no way to achieve that and your idea is totally unworkable.  Bitcoin is not a democracy.  It never will be.  It's better than democracy.  It's freedom.

You've convinced yourself that Core are in control so you just make up an endless pile of lies to justify that insane belief.  You are demonstrably wrong.  There have been numerous codebases and I've supported the developers of those codebases when others in the community have attacked them.  Users are free to choose these other clients.  First we had XT (which came about as a result of developers not being able to agree, so you saying that they have to agree is clearly moronic and can't be achieved in the real world where people are allowed to disagree).  I supported XT.  I defended the developers who made it when others accused them of a "hostile takeover attempt" (which to me sounds equally as idiotic as your "mandatory consensus bypass" phrase).  We had the /btc1 branch.  Some forum users claimed they shouldn't be allowed to do what they were doing and that they were "stealing Core's property", which I emphatically fought against because it's total bullshit.  We still have BU.  I still support the developers of that codebase even though I think Emergent Consensus isn't a good idea in practice.  They are free to make that code.  Users are free to run that code.

To anyone reading this post:

If you aren't a fan of SegWit or Lightning, there are alternatives.  It's entirely your choice.  You have the option of running BU instead.  The latest version for the BTC chain is 1.0.3.0 and you can find it here (but ensure you select the BTC version).  

Happy now, franky1?  

I will continue to defend the right of ANY developer, not just Core, to make what they want to make.  To paraphrase a quote commonly misattributed to Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you say code but I will defend to the death your right to say code it."

You just attack the developers of any code you disagree with because you don't have a more convincing argument.  Which is why users are still choosing to run Core's code.  They clearly presented the winning case.  Users agree with it.  If another dev or group of devs ever come up with something better, consensus may change.  But for now, no one is anywhere near creating something better.  You keep saying what's supposedly wrong with Core, but not only is every idea you've ever suggested about a billion times worse or totally impossible to achieve, but you've also shown no intent to actually make a client of your own to prove how "good" your ideas would be.  Put up or shut up.  This is me once again supporting you in making your own code.  Even if I disagree with your code because your ideas are abysmal, I'll support your right to make it.  But you won't do it.  Because you just want to tell other people what to make (or more crucially, what not to make) instead.  

questions
1. what is the network based on
2. who secures the network

answer
1. code (it not paper or hugs or bottles of milk)
2. people with control of the code (users do not control the code)

question
1. why do users not control the code

answer
1a. "compatibility" "inflight SF" (devs buzzwords for consensus bypass)
1b. doomads answer 'devs dont have to do what the community ask, devs can do their own thing'

question
1. who does control the code

answer
1. developers that write the code

question
1. why does doomad pretend that core are not the monarch, tyrants, tories, even though its their code that has changed bitcoin for corporate benefit and moving away from open community consensus and features of cheap, diverse permissionless utility ONCHAIN
2. why does franky1 have issues with cores goals

answer
1a. doomad needs to research whats actually happening with the bitcoin network. EG price bitcoin tx's out of being cheap and also stalling onchain scaling to making users feel they need to use a nonblockchained permissioned network called LN
2a. LN is not bitcoin.. LN was not created to be bitcoin compatible. bitcoin was altered to be LN compatible
2b. LN is a separate non blockchained network for any coin thats LN compatible (litecoin and others). not a feature solely for btc
2c. onchain scaling can expand, but right now no alternative brands that have their own proposals. just sheep following core
2d. if other brands dared to make own proposals then core will do their bypass and rekt campaigns.. again(emphasis)


i do laugh at doomad. not because of malice. but because of the flip flopping he does
'devs dont decide users do' vs 'users cant tell devs what to do, devs can decide what ever they want'
'its opt-in' vs 'its compatible'
and many other comedy flip flop moments

i dont blame him, i just feel he needs to update his knowledge of whats really going on

I, just like you, the author, I hope that we will stop looking for benefits from Bitcoin and will begin to promote Satoshi’s original opinion

I find this idea very original. I think that Satoshi is a very clever person who can change the world for the better. To my mind, you need to consider this idea and follow it to succeed in achieving your goals

im not an authoritarian. your the one that wants core domination

and how can i be an authoritation if you see all i do is bitch and whine.
again wheres my whip, wheres my cane, wheres my stick..
come on wheres my authoritarian power?

trying to say im the authoritarian as your last ditch attempt to deflect that its core that are the authoritarian. just goes to show. you are only interested in throwing insults and not learn about bitcoin


again im just calling out issues as i see them. i know you prefer sheep to just kiss cores ass and to not get told about flaws.
but there are flaws

now actually speak to the devs, they will tell you the flaws. then you will realise that you trying to hide the flaws with all your insults and infuriations is just self defeating yourself. your going to blow a blood vessel at this rate.. and what for? social drama?

if a dev admits X happened (inflightSF, UASF, bilateral splits), then there is no point you running in to say it didnt happen thinking you are that devs saviour.

dont you get it yet, your defending devs, not defending bitcoin.. but at the same time you are not realising that devs dont need you defending them because they openly talk about the issues they cause. they literally tell people that they make trojan backdoors for "inflight SF" they tell people they are releasing mandatory code. they tell people bitcoin cant scale. they tell people that the future they envision is a separate network thats not even a blockchain.


all i do is say why those devs idea's are bad for bitcoin in comparison to what bitcoins ethos/satoshis vision was.
if you think im actually trying to destroy core.
wheres the nuke, where the bomb, wheres the whip, wheres the stick, stone, ammo, weapon, code...
oh wait.. there isnt one.

im just telling the people that just following and ass kissing core is not good for bitcoin..
im not the one with mandatory code and trojan backdoors. so im not the authority..
but guess who does use them tricks...

but please with respect do some research.
if you spent more time learning and less time infuriating yourself in social drama. you would be more informed and more calmer
have a nice day

Full nodes don't care about anything. They just work according to protocol. There's really no call to project that stuff on me -- I'm just explaining how it works. What you're saying doesn't even apply to me since I run a full Segwit node.

It's obvious that you don't appreciate Bitcoin's design at all. Bitcoin isn't some hierarchical organization where "voting" decides what changes are made. Changes are either compatible with the consensus, or they're not. You can update your node, or you can process transactions without understanding them, like Satoshi said. One more time:

STOP DOUBLE POSTING AND USE THE EDIT BUTTON.

1.  I know you despise core because they ridiculed you that one time.  I defend the right for any developer to code what they want.  I'm sorry if that's too difficult a concept for you to understand.
2:  I know you don't care about consensus because you're an authoritarian..  I get that (Yes, I think ALL DEVELOPERS can and should do as they please).
3.  I know the social drama is in your head and I insult you because you are completely irrational and it's infuriating trying to reason with someone who is incapable of reason.
4.  There is no social drama you are just paranoid delusional and need to be sectioned under the mental health act.



All the world's previous dictators didn't need code to be a colossal dick, what makes you think you're any different?  All you do is bitch and whine about what core devs should or shouldn't be allowed to do:


No, they shouldn't.  Not you call.  Fuck you.

doomad.
your debate is pointless
1. i know you love core and defend them.. i get that
2. i know you dont care about bitcoin security/satoshi's vision.. i get that(you think core can and should do as they please)
3. i know your just social drama playing and trying to provoke argument to lead to insults. i get that
4. i know you are just trying to catch me out on some social drama. i get that

your strategy is not new. your buddies done the same thing for a few years. but in the end was meaningless in regards to bitcoin

but try to do some research. and remember this is bitcoin forum. so if you want social drama go to a kardashian fanclub site, go to a pub or go watch some eastenders.

and yes i know the next level of the game is for you to act like the victim. but just remember who keeps poking the bear.
remember its you that interjects into a topic and meanders it into a social drama debate where you throw out the insults
. you can keep playing that game, but to me its just a comedy show..

meanwhile ill keep talking about issues that concern bitcoin security, network changes that occur without consensus and also when i see centralisation changing satoshi's vision into something which is more designed for corporate interest.

one day though. i hope you do the research away from your chums spoonfeedings. and then you have that lightbulb moment to see the big picture

until then, all i can say. with respect. is go research

---

your main gripe seems to be the false assumption that i want to control the network
flaw in your assumption.
where is my whip, my stick, my bribing, my commits. my code that has any way of making them change.
again you say i want x/y/z but thats your assumption.

my comments on this forum are not to just kiss cores ass..
my comments on this forum are not to just blindly follow core
my comments on this forum are to point out issues that the network is not as open and diverse as satoshis vision wanted it
my comments on this forum are that the code core are trojaning (inflight sw+mandatory bypass) are not helping the BITCOIN community, not helping network security and not doing what the vast comunity want(only 40% want segwit)

this is so that some people may wake up and not just follow core and realise there is more to the network and there should be more to the network than just the core roadmap

i dont usually directly insult. but lets try just once. (its more comedy than insult)
i know your from the UK. but um. are you welsh?
i only ask because it seems you prefer sheep

because the mandatory consensus bypass was unavoidable.

viabtc, bitcoinABC are the DCG.co puppets
go research they needed to create a separate network to throw the opposers to segwit into.. no one denies that

via and ABC are a group paid for by the same guys that paid for USAF and certain core devs
again go research.

i told you and windfury about the 3 card trick.. but again you stuck head in sand, just to play the social drama games without understanding the underlayer of the games and what actually happened.
the plan was always follow core or F**K off to an altcoin
well done.

my gripe is just that.. well done.
but if you look at the data of which caused which. its still the same group.

and you have not proven that cash forked first.. (hint check the blockchain)

plus. heres the funny.. it just proves your pointless finger pointing at ver and jihan wu. as you just proved to yourself that cash was not created by ver and wu.
they are not devs, they are just PR guys (faceplates with a smile and the occassional middle finger)

if you done your research you would see that the 3 card trick leads back to the same group that want segwit and wanted opposers off the network

NOW GO RESEARCH
oh and you will learn that you are on the right track if your research bumps into the NYA agreement (a little hint for you)
oh and you will furthr learn how deep the social deception goes when you learn about the late 2015 consensus convention that introduced the roadmap.. learn who sponsored it...

Ditto to you.  The actual events show that BCH was going to be launched by ViaBTC whatever anyone on the BTC chain (devs, miners, users, literally anyone) decided.  The split was a foregone conclusion.  That's what happened.  

oh doomad

your flip flopping
(now your saying the network had to upgrade to accept cores nw stuff for it to activate (faceplam))

i do laugh.
may i wish you well in your research of actual events. but it seems after so many posts and so many explanations you are just ignoring actually researching.

you have spent so many days insulting, but yet to show any sign of actually researching anything new since you startd your insult spams

CORE didnt need an OPT-IN to get activation.. they just done pidgeon english(your buzzword about compatible nodes) bypass and the mandatory threat car bumper sticker flag(again not needing a node upgrade) or get thrown off the road map
(people didnt need to upgrade their node. nor did it need 95% of the community to run a upgraded node)

(bip9 inflight sf) LEARN IT. i even posted it from the horses mouth and made it red just to make it easier for you just a few posts ago
usaf learn it (mandatory bypass/ controversial fork/ bilateral split(call it what you like, but learn it)
consensus learn it
as you even keep pretending that old node are compatible(full validation nodes) ..
literally is you admitting you know that the community didnt need to OPT-IN because even without upgrading they would still accept some form of data they wont reject.. even if that data cant be fully validated..
thus the community had no vote

the community did not need to upgrade to activate, nor could they reject what core done (without editing their node specifically)
core nodes would have banned nodes and rejected blocks that didnt follow cores plan

again LEARN about the mandatory bypass
the devs literally told you that they can slide in changes without the network consent

exactly supposed to be that the spirit of the idea is not to make money but to liberate us from the financial tyrany that we have today but sadly, there are just some greedy ricgh people took that from us.

Literally fallen at the first hurdle.  Devs don't have to agree.  Those securing the network do.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" when you haven't got the slightest clue about it yourself.  I'm sure you would love it if there was another team who would then be in a position to veto all the ideas you personally disagree with, but Bitcoin doesn't work like that and never will. 

As for the rest of your post, you are proposing something that sounds remarkably like the introduction of political parties and a public vote on their manifestos.  Bitcoin is not a democracy and we're not staging your silly little "elections".  All it takes is for the introduction of some campaign contributions and corporate lobbying and suddenly the whole thing is just as corrupt and controlled as the rest of the world is. 

Even by your dismally low standards, that's a truly horrific idea.  If that's the system you want, go make it and see if anyone likes it.  I, for one, categorically do not.  Bitcoin under your style of "governance" would be an unmitigated disaster. 



I'm not the one with the reading problem.  If a dev coded something tomorrow that threw any pool off the network if they produced a block larger than 10 kilobytes, that code doesn't mean anything unless there are nodes who are enforcing that code.  Even if there was a BIP for it.  Even if there was a flag day announced.  Even if all the Core devs agreed and made that the next official Core release.  Nothing actually happens unless network participants are using that software. 

It always comes down to that one simple question which you are totally unable to reconcile with all your crazy ideas about developers enforcing changes:  How are developers forcing people to run this code?  What you're suggesting is that every single person securing this network right now is a gullible fool who has been deceived by a cabal of sinister gatekeepers.  How likely is that really?  What are the odds of that being true?  Apparently we're on a network where no one agrees with the rules that are currently being enforced, but everyone keeps enforcing them anyway?  That's insanity.  Seek help.

If the community run the code which causes these effects you so passionately despise, that still means consensus was reached and those are the rules that will be enforced by the network.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus because you are pretty much the only lunatic on this entire forum who thinks consensus means the developers are in charge.  It's demonstrably wrong.  Your little crusade is fundamentally misguided.

And in the end, not that many people were actually running the UASF code anyway.  And even if larger numbers of users had been running it, UASF was not the result of any work done in a Core code repository and I challenge you to prove otherwise.  UASF was an alternative client, much like the one you're running.  You might have noticed that some of the most vociferous and militant supporters of User Activated Stumbling Flounder went a little quiet after SegWit got activated by the miners instead of the users.  They didn't get exactly what they wanted either.  Most of them couldn't even square the hypocrisy of what they were arguing for. 

Every single argument I used against the UASF fanboys works against your bullshit arguments too, so perhaps you have more in common with them than you're willing to admit.  Consensus didn't agree with them, just like it doesn't agree with you.  But what the network as a whole does agree in is that we move forward as a chain that has absolutely no significant interest in Emergent Consensus and isn't going to turn into some sort of crooked "democracy", so cry about it all you want.  Your beliefs are terrible and Bitcoin would be far worse if it worked the way you wanted it to. 

While it's almost impossible to be actually sure what satoshi(him/her/they) had in mind,i honestly doubt this creation was built in order to threaten the well known financial system..

The bitcoin is a p2p method of transaction,built in order to increase individual wealth by putting control in the hands of its users,now that's where the conventional system comes in, individuals lack control in it as opposed to the blockchain technology,thats what I think satoshi had in mind..

To give control to users, and leave them an opportunity to invest and get rich,all within their powers, no government,no regulations,no body,no insurance etc
Just the users/enthusiast

every single idea of revolution start with a noble cause. but end up derail from original idea. exploited by opportunist and finally taken by capitalist. bitcoin is no escape. while the freedom is given to people, rich and powerful are even more freedom to expand their control.