Topic: Satoshi's original idea... - page 4. (Read 1323 times)
All i know is that satoshi know that there's a trading system per country and international. But most of the people can't afford the starting fee and don't know how it runs and it doesn't really helps individuals but only the company. So, satoshi made an alternative market or system that solve all the problem and now we're using it.
"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services."
The above quote is perhaps the most believable proof that he was perhaps also worried about the inability of the poor masses to fully adopt the technology because of transaction costs which would bar them from most minimum possible p2p transfers. This indicates that he actually wanted a decentralised global financial tool for the least possible kind of transactions which is really possible for the "underprivileged", giving them complete charge over their own finances.
services."
The above quote is perhaps the most believable proof that he was perhaps also worried about the inability of the poor masses to fully adopt the technology because of transaction costs which would bar them from most minimum possible p2p transfers. This indicates that he actually wanted a decentralised global financial tool for the least possible kind of transactions which is really possible for the "underprivileged", giving them complete charge over their own finances.
yea which is why many detest how devs have PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake. and instead only twisted bitcoin to be compatible for other networks of convenience which would require authorisations and fee's away from the blockchain
But why should developers refuse to innovate upon the mother architecture of bitcoin? Is it that the is non to be done again?
"... for bitcoin's sake". Is it to preserve the original ideology that they do it, or what exactly? You sound like a developer, which I think you are. Technologies may evolve pass current norms in a short span of years, you know that. If that happens when devs refuse to continually adapt, will bitcoin still be bitcoin? Do you think your chosen strategy to "PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake" is really a good one. Or, is there something I am missing
Hahaha. I knew this would push some buttons. But if I was Bob wanting to send Alice some Bitcoins, doesn't Lightning require a user to open a channel to another peer and literally makes users send Bitcoins from one peer to another? Alice to Bob. Peer to peer.
Plus he was laughing because he got it.
1. that can be done without LN
How, and what do you have in mind?
Quote
2. the purpose of LN is routing (multiparty hops that need to be online and sign before even getting to destination)
I know, I was merely pointing out the difference between a Bitcoin on-chain transaction which is broadcast over the network, and an LN transaction that literally sends the Bitcoins peer to peer.
Quote
3. the locking in and unlocking.. if you stay uptodate with concepts is factories(fortknox analogy)
Channel factories? Can you give us the links on the relevant information about it?
Quote
may i wish you well in your independant research
hint: multisig, factories, watch towers, routing, being online(notpush)
if you only ever want to just pay 1 person repeatedly. you dont need LN.
thousands of users have been doing it for years without LN
have a nice day
hint: multisig, factories, watch towers, routing, being online(notpush)
if you only ever want to just pay 1 person repeatedly. you dont need LN.
thousands of users have been doing it for years without LN
have a nice day
Give us the links of what you read and I shall find links of my own and let us compare notes.
what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..
segwit was a soft fork. soft forks are compatible with the current consensus since they merely add compatible rules. at the node level, you can't "vote no" on a soft fork because your node already considers it compatible (assuming miners are enforcing it).
that's why older versions are completely compatible with segwit. it's a matter of network protocol, not "voting". as such, it makes no sense to view legacy nodes as "no votes". legacy nodes are opted into the consensus already, and segwit was compatible with the consensus.
also, about this "voting" shit: consensus is not democratic. it's not a "voting" system. you either opt in to the consensus by running a node, or you opt out of the consensus by shutting down your node and leaving the network. running an incompatible node = opting out. you can fix your node to reject segwit blocks. but you'll be opting out of the consensus.
old nodes are not compatible. they are handed a pidgeon english translation.. theres a difference
its why even the devs clearly pointed out that old nodes become downstream/filtered(their buzzwords) nodes instead of part of the main relay network. they even drew a picture to make it easy to understand.
old nodes do not relay blocks to segwit nodes nor relay segwit transactions. they only receive a stripped down block and then sit on the edge of the network
old nodes are handed stripped data to BYPASS a consensus mechanism that would otherwise have gotten segwit blocks rejected
thats why luke JR done what he done. it was not a softfork in a sense of consensus. it was a bypass to avoid a consensus event. luke JR even said so himself that it bypasses the requirement of a consensus
but the funny part is. because they didnt get 95% through the "compatibility" trick.. and for months they only sat at 35-40% they needed to then do a mandatory threat eviction trick to FAKE getting 95% by literally ignoring/rejecting opposers.
that is like apartheid. not giving the whole community a vote and ignoring a certain side of the community and only counting those that agree..
the fair, level playing field solution would have been to realise they were not getting it. and then recode a bip that included what the whole community would have been happier with. and thus not need to mandate anything
anyway
if you actually look at the data a old node gets. and that it no longer fully validates all data but just blindly passes things.. you will see the shoddy crap. if it was compatible then old nodes would be on par and same level.. you know still relaying full data and validating full data
old nodes dont get full data. they dont get the now full true blockchain. trying to say they are "compatible" is downplaying how old nodes are not actually full validating/archiving nodes of full true data. if you truly think old nodes are compatible and same level playing field then you need to do some serious research. and not just from buddies who just repeat the same story. but actually get the data and look at it
dang all these core defenders cant be assed to even look at code or data and just wanna protect a dev.. even if its at the cost of just letting the network not excel..(facepalm)
its becoming funny how you lot are protecting certain devs, even if you have not read or understood what the devs you protect have actually admitted to. which adds more proof you lack research and are just trying to cause social drama for entertainment.
maybe its time you lot spend more time understanding and reading data, statistics and researching what actually happened and care more about the effects it has on the network. and less time just chatting about what you think the dev you protect wants.
care about the network. not a person and especially not a person you have not researched to even know what they actually said
anyway. your meanders to turn topics into 'protect a dev' are foolish. so spend some time researching. and maybe one day you will actually start to care less about devs and care more about the network
what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..
segwit was a soft fork. soft forks are compatible with the current consensus since they merely add compatible rules. at the node level, you can't "vote no" on a soft fork because your node already considers it compatible (assuming miners are enforcing it).
that's why older versions are completely compatible with segwit. it's a matter of network protocol, not "voting". as such, it makes no sense to view legacy nodes as "no votes". legacy nodes are opted into the consensus already, and segwit was compatible with the consensus.
also, about this "voting" shit: consensus is not democratic. it's not a "voting" system. you either opt in to the consensus by running a node, or you opt out of the consensus by shutting down your node and leaving the network. running an incompatible node = opting out. you can fix your node to reject segwit blocks. but you'll be opting out of the consensus.
So which developers have highlighted the issue that they've put a hold on innovation? Because that sounds like something you're making up. Stick to highlighting things that are actually true and I won't call you out on them. It's really not that difficult to understand. If you don't spread misinformation, I'll have no need to correct it. And since you failed to answer last time, I'll ask again:
lukejr pulling out of the 2015 x2
gmax pulling out of the 2015 x2
both stating that onchain scaling is broke and other networks of non blockchains are the future
. and how it can be done without consensus
devs doing the UASF of again not wanting onchain scaling but instead just wanting transaction format changes that are compatible with another network thats not blockchain
3 years on and they are still saying that onchain scaling aint needed
Luke JR actually went on to say blockchain needs to DECREASE blockscaling to make blocks tx fees higher..(facepalm)
now go learn the history of BITCOIN from actual research. and not just auto defend core. its getting real funny that you are defending devs more then the network.
anyway.. all you seem to want to do is meander topics away from what bitcoin was,is and should be. just to defend what core are mutating bitcoin to be.. a stagnant expensive blockchain in the hopes people use managed accounts network that require counterpart authorisation... (facepalm)
mining pools do not set rules. they just collate transactions in a format that must meet the rules of the network.
if its not in the format. it gets rejected.
all pools can do is decide to include or exclude transactions.
A lot of what you said makes sense, but if the bitcoin price is too low and energy and associated production costs to mine bitcoin are too high, why would somebody bother mining a bitcoin, if it costs more to mine than it does to purchase?
https://i.investopedia.com/image/jpeg/1520501899285/bitcoin_mining_costs_around_world_chart.jpg
A lot of the world is already priced out of bitcoin mining. Seems like if the price keeps declining only a handful of countries will find their mining operations to be profitable. That's why I brought up the whole "centralization" aspect. I realize this is a hypothetical situation, and also that mining pools don't set the rules, but they nevertheless have economic power and more say in how the network is run than normal nodes.
Actually that will be a good thing.
If this miners stops then the difficulty will be lower making it faster for transactions to be confirmed too.
Do you know there are still companies who wants to mine bitcoin and yet they cannot because it is still crowded.
It will be like before when bitcoin is still unknown to many.
Now about what the OP says.
Micropayments or transactions. Can we say that Satoshi is also on the poor side?
I mean, he would not see this kind of things happening in the world if he is already rich or something right?
Somehow I am still going back to my thread to know what made him do a huge effort for bitcoin.
now those poking the bear meanderers should hopefully be busy and quiet while they do their own research outside their cabin fever of core defense
lets get back on topic
satoshi idea was not a capitalist bank take over. it was a open diverse alternative to the capitalist banker model.
something that would help should another banker crises occur where people can use something else and not be reliant on one system
years before 2009 the cypherpunks were always looking for an alternative. but it was satoshi that patched together lots of idea's into the unique model we now know as bitcoin. satoshis personal reason for getting involved can be seen in the quote in the genesis block
lets get back on topic
satoshi idea was not a capitalist bank take over. it was a open diverse alternative to the capitalist banker model.
something that would help should another banker crises occur where people can use something else and not be reliant on one system
years before 2009 the cypherpunks were always looking for an alternative. but it was satoshi that patched together lots of idea's into the unique model we now know as bitcoin. satoshis personal reason for getting involved can be seen in the quote in the genesis block
the truth is, your feelings aren't shared by the market. since bitcoin is an opt-in, voluntary network, it's up to the actual users to reject core and pursue an alternative. if bitcoin users were opposed to core's development process, they'd run alternative/incompatible versions. a few actually do that, but the vast majority of node operators don't. your issue is with them, not core developers.
Thank you for stating it in a far more eloquent fashion than I can normally manage. I've been saying something along those lines (admittedly with more insults included) to franky1 for weeks now. I don't know if it's just willful ignorance on his part, or if his brain just isn't wired up in a way that allows him to comprehend it. Bitcoin is working as intended. There's no conspiracy. There isn't an all-powerful entity pulling the strings behind the scenes. It's just people freely choosing to run code that does what they want it to do. I'm pretty sure that was Satoshi's original idea, so all is well.
what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..
the nodes and pools that actually did object adding code that would ban segwit blocks. cores code just ignored the vote (reject block and ban ip nodes) to make it appear that core got 95%
READ THE DANG CODE!! not your friends PR
the laugh of the "voluntary opt-in".. is funny
but you forget to mention there was no consensus veto to prevent.
it was a mandatory tactic not a consensus tactic
now try ignoring your friends PR stuff and do some independant research.. like i have told ya to try. i even done so nicely without insults
I believe Satoshi realized how centralized the world financial system was and the huge charges taken from people when they transaction funds. This was some kind of an eye opener to introduce a system where people can send funds to another person without any third party involved. He realized that if he could create a peer to peer system, this will be much easier to send funds without any third party involvement.
Hahaha. I knew this would push some buttons. But if I was Bob wanting to send Alice some Bitcoins, doesn't Lightning require a user to open a channel to another peer and literally makes users send Bitcoins from one peer to another? Alice to Bob. Peer to peer.
Plus he was laughing because he got it.
1. that can be done without LN
2. the purpose of LN is routing (multiparty hops that need to be online and sign before even getting to destination)
3. the locking in and unlocking.. if you stay uptodate with concepts is factories(fortknox analogy)
may i wish you well in your independant research
hint: multisig, factories, watch towers, routing, being online(notpush)
if you only ever want to just pay 1 person repeatedly. you dont need LN.
thousands of users have been doing it for years without LN
have a nice day
there has literally been hundreds of proposals. over many years but they never get passed the cabin of core dev moderators that only want to follow their own roadmap, and not actually be open to diverse community consensus.
open source development is merit-based. it's not a charity or a lottery---no one cares if "hundreds of proposals" exist if they're not worthy of coding, testing and merging. core is like any other FOSS project. if a proposal can't reach rough consensus among core developers, why the hell would core implement it?
you should go code your own implementation or submit proposals for an alternative implementation like btcd, knots, bcoin, libbitcoin, bitcore, etc. what you're talking about is a big part of the reason alternative implementations exist at all.
the truth is, your feelings aren't shared by the market. since bitcoin is an opt-in, voluntary network, it's up to the actual users to reject core and pursue an alternative. if bitcoin users were opposed to core's development process, they'd run alternative/incompatible versions. a few actually do that, but the vast majority of node operators don't. your issue is with them, not core developers.
Thank you for stating it in a far more eloquent fashion than I can normally manage. I've been saying something along those lines (admittedly with more insults included) to franky1 for weeks now. I don't know if it's just willful ignorance on his part, or if his brain just isn't wired up in a way that allows him to comprehend it. Bitcoin is working as intended. There's no conspiracy. There isn't an all-powerful entity pulling the strings behind the scenes. It's just people freely choosing to run code that does what they want it to do. I'm pretty sure that was Satoshi's original idea, so all is well.
there has literally been hundreds of proposals. over many years but they never get passed the cabin of core dev moderators that only want to follow their own roadmap, and not actually be open to diverse community consensus.
open source development is merit-based. it's not a charity or a lottery---no one cares if "hundreds of proposals" exist if they're not worthy of coding, testing and merging. core is like any other FOSS project. if a proposal can't reach rough consensus among core developers, why the hell would core implement it?
you should go code your own implementation or submit proposals for an alternative implementation like btcd, knots, bcoin, libbitcoin, bitcore, etc. what you're talking about is a big part of the reason alternative implementations exist at all.
the truth is, your feelings aren't shared by the market. since bitcoin is an opt-in, voluntary network, it's up to the actual users to reject core and pursue an alternative. if bitcoin users were opposed to core's development process, they'd run alternative/incompatible versions. a few actually do that, but the vast majority of node operators don't. your issue is with them, not core developers.
Good post. But I would like to hear Satoshi himself))))
Bitcoin was created in order to eliminate all the disadvantages associated with the standard payment systems to which we are so used.
Fixed some cons, others will appear.
I think that initially no one planned anything.
Bitcoin was created as a mathematical experiment to show an alternative to standard payments.
And for two years, no one needed Bitcoin until Silk Road appeared.
Fixed some cons, others will appear.
I think that initially no one planned anything.
Bitcoin was created as a mathematical experiment to show an alternative to standard payments.
And for two years, no one needed Bitcoin until Silk Road appeared.
yea which is why many detest how devs have PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake.
Many idiots, maybe. Real innovations don't merely involve tinkering with a few static variables and pretending that's somehow going to solve all the problems. Surely if innovation was on hold, someone would be able to come up with something better? If you think there's more innovative code out there, would you care to point us to it?
i know you dislike me highlighting things. but when the developers(people) actually highlight issues themselves.
So which developers have highlighted the issue that they've put a hold on innovation? Because that sounds like something you're making up. Stick to highlighting things that are actually true and I won't call you out on them. It's really not that difficult to understand. If you don't spread misinformation, I'll have no need to correct it. And since you failed to answer last time, I'll ask again:
If there is more innovative code out there, would you care to point us to it? Clearly there's a gap in the market if BTC's development has stagnated. Where's all the exciting progress being made right now? What revolutionary concepts do you have to share with us, franky1? Nothing? Thought as much.
Or are you just trying (and failing) to recruit members for your little hate campaign because you got ridiculed that one time?
Well, if that is a critical issue i advice you to make contact with Core/LightCoin dev's about youre concern. They're testing it atm, this will be the moment for it to how to fix it. We'll be gratefull.
i did..
EG last april i spotted the anyonecanspend issue..
their response.
ridicule me for months..
Bitterness does strange things to people. Maybe you should see a therapist or something?
One thing for sure even Satoshi had good motive creating bitcoin things change. Sometimes people misinterpreted what was the original intention why he created bitcoin. Putting myself in the situation of Nakamoto I would rather be glad to see some good changes due to generation change of tradition and culture.
in essence of everything I learned, the creation of bitcoin aims to reduce third-party fraud, or eliminate fraud with the blockchain system and allow peer-to-peer transactions without any third parties.
eventually, this should discourage mining and difficulty should adjust downwards as miners shut down. the cost of mining would therefore drop as well. that's why it doesn't make much sense to focus on the current cost of mining: it adjusts upwards and downwards based on speculation and profitability.
Except the price has done nothing but go down during 2018, and the mining difficulty has increased several fold. There seems to be very little correlation between the two, at least this year. If anything its been an inverse correlation.
if you cut the november 2017 march 2018 mountain away. you will think differently about the chicken and egg game
in november 2017 when prices hit the $5800 flatline.
mining was cheaper.. it has taken many many months for mining to catch up.. until the last couple months the majority of 'cheap mining' is not exceeding the bottomline flatline value of $5800 and so now things have shifted. and value will rise now that people will start to see mining is not profitable compared to last year.
this has taken time due to S9 asics moving from near $3k each to $440 each which has kept mining 'cheap' while hashpower rose. but like i said things platoo'd and now switching
Plus to make some people angry. Bitcoin is not peer to peer. It is a broadcast network. Lightning is peer to peer, it literally sends transactions from one peer to another.
yea i laugh too. i was wondering when he and his friends would jump in to advertise the separate network. kind of a shame that he shamelessly promotes it but yet to understand what he promotes, so i under stand why you laugh at him.
typical PR wannabe. saying bitcoin is not bitcoin but this other network that is not even a blockchain is more bitcoin than bitcoin... (facepalm) im kinda waiting for when the penny drops and he learns what chainhash means in context of a not a pure bitcoin feature. and he learns about the 12 decimal transactions to realise its not bitcoin.. but, i tried hinting
now its left for him to just work it out for himself.
may he soon will learn about routing. may he will learn about needing to be online to receive funds. needing watchtowers and factories. needing middle men services to serve cell apps. but im guessing like his friends they will just spend 2 years in cabin fever and just talk amungst themselves to just self promote the little PR stuff they have
Hahaha. I knew this would push some buttons. But if I was Bob wanting to send Alice some Bitcoins, doesn't Lightning require a user to open a channel to another peer and literally makes users send Bitcoins from one peer to another? Alice to Bob. Peer to peer.
Plus he was laughing because he got it.
yeah indeed, satoshi make this because wanting to pressed the transaction system in the world that are dominant from the bank, and long time process also this good tech can being development to make a change in economic system after all
besides aiming for business, i think satoshi found bitcoin for a more effective transaction in current and future development. with current centralization system, it will take a lot of time and not be transparent Jump to: