Topic: Satoshi's original idea... - page 5. (Read 1323 times)
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
From what I have read I think he was concerned about :
- Censorship
- Privacy violation.
- Currency manipulation
- Currency Inflation (seen mostly on his Bitcointalk Comments)
- Centralized currency
In summary, he want a currency run in a decentralized fashion, used Peer-to-peer and difficult to control by an individual, government, company or central group.
- Censorship
- Privacy violation.
- Currency manipulation
- Currency Inflation (seen mostly on his Bitcointalk Comments)
- Centralized currency
In summary, he want a currency run in a decentralized fashion, used Peer-to-peer and difficult to control by an individual, government, company or central group.
He definitely targeted the Banks, because we know he pointed to a news article in the newspapers where a second Bailout for Banks was announced, when he first launched Bitcoin.
I think his idea was to provide for a alternative payment option for people who wanted to move away from centralized financial institutions. Satoshi figured that a decentralized system will be a much better solution than the corrupt Banking and other centralized payment systems, like PayPal.
Once payment processors and regulated exchanges entered, this concept failed miserably for the people using these services.
I think his idea was to provide for a alternative payment option for people who wanted to move away from centralized financial institutions. Satoshi figured that a decentralized system will be a much better solution than the corrupt Banking and other centralized payment systems, like PayPal.
Once payment processors and regulated exchanges entered, this concept failed miserably for the people using these services.
But the original purpose of Satoshi is now gone. The darker parts of society have changed it and are taking advantage of Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin will take longer to become famous and be the most valuable currency without these dark components. Anyway, that's a great exchange.
Surely Satoshi is a very smart person, from him born bitcoin, which is now widely known by people and has changed a lot in terms of income, bitcoin until now is still the top coin crypto and coin no one can beat it
its the developers who code the rules you should be concerned about.
No it isn't. You just need to stop being paranoid about them.
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 ofcourse expected the usual plan of windfury, doomad, (lauda, carlton and achowe*) to start the usual cabin fever core fan club defense of sling insults and repeat pretending to know nothing.. but thats an old astroturf of 2 years ago..
yea you poke the bear and plead ignorant to the poke until you get a bit and then act like your victims.. but oh well..
*(yet to jump in to protect there buddies)
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.
i know you dislike me highlighting things. but when the developers(people) actually highlight issues themselves. i find it very funny how you defend them(people) as it they are perfect and didnt say what they said, an instead think its the network thats broke and limited itself. as if the network is an AI that chose to become stagnant and capped itself.. and suddenly needs commercial services and other networks to function instead.(inshort i laugh you think devs dont control the code..)
i really hope you have gone and took some time to learn the subtle hints i gave and actually have something substantial to offer. rather that just slinging insults
maybe instead of trying to dismiss history that can be found in the blockchain and in code. to protect devs. actually realise its the devs screaming out these things so they dont need your protection.
you are not helping them or bitcoin. you just seem to end up looking like wanting to cause an argument just for some soap opera entertainment.
go learn about the buzzwords discussed in other topics and learn the source of those concerns. if you have not got the hints in other topics. stop asking. because you seem to not want to be spoonfed
its the developers who code the rules you should be concerned about.
No it isn't. You just need to stop being paranoid about them.
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 consider Satoshi a very smart man who has managed to make a revolution. To my mind, it is a man who has given us the future that will never be the same. BTC is the coin that has changed the world of currency forever
I remember reading this several years ago... My thought, as when first reading On the Origin of Species, The Law, and other great works: "what a fucking genius" 
"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
"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.
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
This is true, a small number of transactions is a problem. Because sometimes the number of transactions can be less than the transaction costs themselves. So many tokens have sprung up that offer ideas to overcome this, but even now I think that people's interest in these tokens is still below the scale of people's interest in bitcoin. Hopefully this problem will be solved soon so that bitcoin can reach all lower classes to the upper classes.
I think that Satoshi's only desire was to make the economy better. If it created for micropayment, why would it be limited? It is impossible for us to see that anything limited in the world remains at a low price. Also, if it was created for micropayment, it was not considered with no value against the paper money so, if you think it is not suitable for micropayment according to today's price.
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.
That's because of miner speculation. Even in the face of falling price, miners are willing to bring new hardware online. Ultimately, this won't always be true if the long term price trend reverses. In late 2014 or early 2015, when Bitcoin was in a long term correction, the hash rate went sideways. If the market stayed bearish for longer, it probably would have started dropping. Eventually, in a falling market, miners will run out of capital to burn and won't be able to continue mining unprofitably.
Bitcoin is not only a means of payment. At the heart of Bitcoin is the blockchain - this is what we should be grateful to whoever called himself Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever he really is. And now the blockchain's ideas are being introduced into all possible aspects of the economy and technology. I think that in the coming years, the whole world will function with the help of blockchains of various kinds.
Bitcoin has been one of the greatest innovations we have ever seen. Satoshi played a great role to change the payment system. But we cannot ignore that this system must be improved. There are some problems should be solved. This is same as any other innovation had every new thing.
the biggest problem is that Bitcoin is now used not for transactions, but usual market technologies are used to raise money on its shifting nature
and it kinda slows the potential of BTC
and it kinda slows the potential of BTC
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.
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.
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.
It won't be as much a problem with centralization as much as it is with distribution.
Miners will be less distributed in a sense that they'll only exist in a few countries, but they would still be under the control of many distinct people, so it would stay decentralized. Difficulty adjustments will slow this process down, and along with the rise of renewable energy tech, this may not be a very significant concern in the future.
Jump to: