Bitcoin Forum

Was Satoshi's thinking of a real peer-to-peer cash system allowing micropayments to happen or was he just wanting to make a threat and rebellion for the current scam financial system?

In the original white paper you can found he was aiming to bring to the world a peer-to-peer cash system and you can see also from the following original white paper Satoshi's quote:


So since the beginning Satoshi was indeed worried about the trust model the financial system keep from themselves.


He was indeed, most worried about the trust issue rather than allowing micropayments with a peer-to-peer cash system. This was understandable because from the beginning nobody couldn't tell if the system proposed were going to be successful or not so was better first to solve the trust issue and mostly because the recent 2008 financial crisis.

Some other Satoshi's quote that suggest the aiming to micropayments:


So in conclusion you can say Satoshi indeed solve the trust issue of a centralized monetary system and although today Bitcoin is the most widely used cryptocurrency that allows wealth transfer in a decentralized way it also lack of the main features purposes that is to accomplish small casual transactions with lower costs.

So in my personal point of view I see Satoshi's first attempt to solve the centralized trust issue with a decentralized ledger called now blockchain but then for micropayments we found it's vulnerabilities and we call them scaling issues. So my hope is, in the 10th anniversary of Bitcoin we can retake his original idea and now with the research and advance of the decentralized systems we can found a better way to accomplish it's main idea.

I know it's just matter of time Bitcoin will solve all it's issues and reach the adoption and awareness it deserves all across the world  ;D

Links: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  

I don't think that the main purpose of Sayoshi creating bitcoin was to be rebllious; he just wanted to help people to have a say in the growing financial markets even without the help of the banks. Micropayments was never the main goal, too, but seeing the potential of the trust-less P2P cash system he devised, it was also noted (of course) to let people know what they can do with the coin. If I have a project that I wanted to share, I'd state all of its capabilities and weakness, too, so what Satoshi included on bitcoin's whitepaper is normally what any other project developers/creators would do, too.

As you can see, bitcoin is already a great tool for micropayments due to the recent scaling solution (SegWit)  and some people in poverty-stricken countries are utilizing the value of bitcoin to live day-to-day (Venezuela). These visions were somewhat addressed by his creations today, and there's really nothing to argue about bitcoin's true purpose as in the end, it still gets the job done.

That's how it goes -- decentralization has costs. The linear scaling model increasingly disincentivizes micro-payments as demand for block space rises. This is necessary because of Bitcoin's limited supply: Eventually fees, rather than block subsidy, need to incentivize miners.

The best solution seems to be offloading transactions onto exponentially scaling platforms that retain trustlessness. The Lightning Network is exciting in this respect, but it definitely has some drawbacks vs. the Bitcoin protocol. (e.g. you need to keep your private keys online)

when you "invent" something new, you hope to solve a million different things with it and that your creation is as perfect as possible. but of course that is impossible to do. you can not foresee everything and solve everything to have the perfect creation. bitcoin is meant for micro-transactions and it  does work for them now too as the fee is low most of the times but not all the times. and that is because scaling is not something you solve once and be rid of it. it is something that we will be constantly struggling with because of the blockchain technology's design. in other words every now and then we need to improve it. last year we had Segregated Witness and that improved scaling. pretty soon we need to do it again and improve it more. both on-chain and with help of second layer (LN).

first of all micro payments. are the things that itunes, google, facebook, spotify do. where they charge $0.0001 for something(royalties per track played, payment per advert viewed, commission per youtube viewed)
do not be fooled into the myth that a micro payment is "a starbucks coffee"
the whole not fit for starbuck coffee has been the rhetoric of a group of people that want to say bitcoin is broke for normal spending

bitcoin does not NEED LN
USERS can CHOOSE if they want to use a convenient different network
LN is not part of bitcoin
LN is a separate network for any compatible coin for convenience
(much like visa is convenient for fiat. but is not itself a fiat or where people store their funds)

bitcoin had to be altered to be compatible to LN. LN was not built to be compatible with bitcoin.
many coins can use LN, thats the whole point of it.

a few people need to stop advertising LN as a bitcoin feature and treat it as a multicoin convenience service

LN is a CONVENIENCE separate network service for people that may see benefit to lock funds up with other people and use with other peoples consent and authorisation for convenience.. but not essential for people to use.
..

the point of blockchain coins is to get away from needing to lock funds up with other people,
the point of bitcoin was made to get away from needing other peoples consent/authorisation.
the point of bitcoin was to be something that is accountable and fully auditable that no certain group could just alter at a whim

Transaction fees remain low enough to enable near-micropayments, but you know, sending money to friends and family via PayPal remains free.

Meanwhile the U.S. dollar remains the go-to safe haven investment and one of the stablest forms of currency in the world.

"The USD is the worst form of currency besides all others tried."

What I worry about is what happens when/if the price of BTC gets much lower and the mining difficulty goes higher -- will that lead to a further centralization of miners? I would assume so, as only those with cheap power and highly efficient systems will be able to make a profit from mining.

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.

if pools start purposefully doing "empty blocks" then the network can just reject blocks. and let other pools win. even if other pools dont have the same top hashpower..
its not as simple as best hashpower wins. its about the first block that satisfies the communities preferences. and no pool with any hashpower can dictate that.

so relax about pools. its the developers who code the rules you should be concerned about.

...
what you dont realise is that when btc goes down and difficulty goes up. there comes to a paradigm where if its too expensive to mine, people will buy. when its too expensive to buy. people will mine.
this is the underlying value which over the last 11 months tested at $5800 bottom..
speculation, hype sits above this to create daily, weekly waves of price above the bottom.

so in your worry of low price high difficulty. people will buy coin until the numbers balance out again.

I agree. I never felt that Satoshi's main goal was to cause more problems(As if we don't have enough already) and instead focused on solving issues like the ability to conduct financial transactions online without any sort of outside interference as you stated. This is the primary reason why I even decided to join this market in the first place since it honestly felt like a dream to me. I never thought that there would be a possibility of conducting online transactions online anonymously in this manner which is what Satoshi was looking to accomplish in my opinion.

These issues will be resolved with the lightning network unless someone comes up with a better proposal, and no one mention shitcoin cash which is just a money making fork that confuses newbies

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.

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.

OP, Satoshi's original vision was to make a "peer to peer" cash system. But the same as some software journey, things change. It is a long story of how Bitcoin got to where it now is, I would suggest reading its history.

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. 8)

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.

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.


 :D

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

price is not value, value is not price
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



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

"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.

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

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" :)

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

No it isn't.  You just need to stop being paranoid about them.



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

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

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.

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.  >:(

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.

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

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. 8)

Plus he was laughing because he got it.

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.

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.

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?


Bitterness does strange things to people.  Maybe you should see a therapist or something? 

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.

Good post. But I would like to hear Satoshi himself))))

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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

How, and what do you have in mind?


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.


Channel factories? Can you give us the links on the relevant information about it?


Give us the links of what you read and I shall find links of my own and let us compare notes.

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 ???

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.

windfury and your cabin fever camp.
in regards to LN
go learn ELTOO
multisig
12decimal transactions
offchain transactions
byzantine generals problem

factories
users pay into a factories address. funds are locked onchain
channels are not funded with the locked balance input
factory makes a OFFCHAIN payment to a channel
channel is funded with a OFFCHAIN IOU from factoriy
channels settlement is not a onchain broadcast, but a OFFCHAIN payment back to the factory with a request that the factory broadcasts a fund unlock onchain, or to re make new paymnt offchain to a new channel.
much like locking gold into fortknox and then playing with paper until you demand fortknow release whatever gold your paper allows you to have back

spend some time learning it in detail, run some scenarios. actually use LN
as for how people can do transactions without LN go learn about multisig, then run some scenarios
maybe think about how with a joint bank account with your spouse, you dont need a special bank tool to then agree with your spouse who gets what. even a post-it note on a fridge will do

oh and when you get to the lightbulb moment of the flaws of a post-it note. you may dawn on the idea of LN's flaw known as the byzantine generals issue(one party can edit their node and no community can validate the new orders/rules the edited node has. and the counterparty using autopilot and new viewing the raw tx data will blindly just follow orders handed to them or get blackmailed into a chargeback(revocation))

in regards to core not being satoshi's idea
go learn consensus
mandatory hard fork(august 1st 2017 contentious hard fork)
trojan soft fork(mid august 2017 consensus bypass using the stripped block data of pidgeon english data)

yea august was comedy gold. performing a mandatory contentious hard fork to just be able to then do a consensus bypass softfork... truly amazing comedy backflipping happened.. all because core didnt get a 95% vote without the circus acts(only 40% vote without circus acts and 3 card trick games)

many people for years have been doing offchain stuff without LN. exchanges have been doing it behind the scenes (research arbitrage reserves). people have even done 2party atomic swaps without LN for years

anyway.. instead of trying to meander topics and just poke the bear
do some research
i have given you hints for months. but you still ask the same questions and then stick fingers in your ears. so just go do some research first this time

If the only form of "innovation" you are capable of recoginsing is a blockweight increase, then I can see why this must be so confusing for you.  Saying that it's not practical to have every single last transaction, no matter how small, recorded on-chain isn't very resource-efficient is not the same as saying that on-chain is "broke".  Your interpretation is wrong.  As usual, you're taking things to extremes.  You have a clear idea of what you think Bitcoin should be and you can't stand the fact that a large majority of the userbase couldn't care less what you think.



How many nodes do you see enforcing that proposal?  One last time in case you still haven't grasped it, anyone can propose a change, but that proposal means nothing if people don't run the code to enforce it.

I think the advantages of bitcoin are not yet fully appreciated,we are now talking about new forks and a new generation of crypto, but in the bitcoin Protocol itself there are many functions that are not yet used.

The more days the bitcoin function gets more, it used to be used for peer to peer transactions. But now more developed, bitcoin can be used for buying and selling, for digital assets and others. Times will continue to change, so does the function of bitcoin.

you seem to think i am only wanting blockweight increase... seems you have stuck head in sand about many things.. and instead just heard your cabin fever friends suggest im just a big blocker...
(facepalm to the 100th degree)
the echoing accoustics of the cabin you sit with your friends repeating the same story to each other until you all beleive it to be true because its the only story you hear must give you headaches. maybe it really is worth you getting some fresh air and seeing beyond the wall of that cabin
have you yet tried to do some independant research away from your buddies?


shock horror.. im not the one saying its broke
further shock is when you find out who does
im the one saying bitcoin can scale... and saying it can scale in many ways (emphasis on thebitcoin network. not other networks pretending to be bitcoin layered)

again your arguing as if "bitcoin is broke" is my interpretation.... (facepalm)
nice meander but im just laughing
oh and not even 40% are using segwit now and not even 40 % are using LN.. should you actually want to do some stats checking.. yea even while pushing alot of people off the network or into non full validating nodes.. the actual utility and desire of segwit and LN is low...
heck even sipa still uses legacy transactions instead of his own invention of segwit.. true comedy


yet luke JR's proposals get to become BIPS.. yet other non core roadmap friendly proposals dont even make it to bip stage...
really shows core have community spirit.. and want to actually be a community REFERENCE.. but oh wait, you stepped over your own toe by admitting core are not a community reference but a team where they decide what should be rejected before even allowing the community to decide

how can a community decide of core close the door on an idea before code is wrote... or REKT a team into an altcoin to avoid community decision

now please please please do some independant research. by this i dont mean ask your buddies opinion.
i have already spotted the many signs that you are just repeating the same gibberish as them when you use certain key buzzwords that group uses
(first time i seen you fell down their buzzword script rabbithole is when you started spouting "conservative")
as a fellow brit. you should know better than to think conservative is a positive.. in bitcoin and british politics. conservative buzzword does not mean what you think it does.

If there was only one single idea I could successfully communicate to you, it's that I'm well past caring what you're saying.   ::)

We've already established that you're running a client that supports Emergent Consensus.  That option is there for those who do think EC is a good idea and people are free to run that code if they want to, but very few people appear to think that's the correct course of action for BTC, because for the most part, people are not electing to run that code.  If they did, your arguments might have some clout.  You are simply a small, but exceedingly outspoken, minority here.  



Yes, let's check the stats for SegWit (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5051985.msg46977155#msg46977155).  As for Lightning, there isn't any kind of threshold it needs to achieve to be useful.  That's the whole point of being able to opt-in.  Some people are using it and that's good enough.  Perhaps more will use it in time as it evolves and becomes more user friendly.  And if they don't, it's still good enough.  It's doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.  Even a small number of LN users is still enough to take some pressure off the BTC blockchain.  But try not to mistake peoples' general enthusiasm for the concept as some sort of notion that literally everyone has to use it.  The option is there, but it is categorically an option.  Not compulsory.

But I bet if usage for LN and SegWit were higher, you'd be claiming that was some sort of goddamn conspiracy too.   ::)



Of course the developers decide what goes into their own client.  What planet are you even living on if you think they don't have that right?  It just goes round and round in circles with you, doesn't it?  Every single thought that escapes from your head is deliberately designed to perpetuate the myth that users somehow get to tell developers what they can or can't do.  Developers don't owe you the exact client you personally want to have.  They're under no obligation to implement every dumb idea you come up with.  They aren't your slaves.  If they aren't interested in your ideas enough to pursue them on merit alone, pay them some money and ask nicely if you want them to make something for you.

The community don't directly get to decide what goes into any particular dev team's client.  That would be completely unworkable (mostly because it would be total chaos and isn't even remotely practical).  However, if Core want to remain relevant, it's up to them to make sure that what they're putting out there appeals to enough users.  Users get to decide if they run that client or a different one.  If an idea is deemed worthy by a significant proportion of the community and Core decide not to implement it, they create a gap in the market which anyone can then fill with a new client, just like the one you freely choose to run.  Ergo, you are the living embodiment of the fact that there is a level playing field.  Of the options available, you're running exactly the code you want to run.  But each and every time a competitor has appeared so far, the community are mostly choosing to run Core's client.  That means they broadly agree with what Core are doing.  Obviously you blame that on the REKT campaigns, but there's not much anyone can do to prevent those and it still doesn't change the fact that BTC users generally don't seem to like EC.



I think the tories are loathsome shit-stains and their particular breed of politics is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think we should be reckless when it comes to Bitcoin.  When I say "conservative" I simply mean not being rash, impulsive or imprudent.  I honestly don't know why the tories even call themselves conservatives, because they're incredibly rash and imprudent with their neoclassical economy BS, but that's a discussion for another topic entirely.  

if you dont care. then why are you for months now repeating yourself every time i point out a flaw in dvs mindset. if you dont care about devs. you would be at a pub, drinking, or watching eastenders or finding some other british drama to entertain your life.

yea check them stats
a transaction is blindly treated as segwit even if 1 input is a segwit address..
yep even if the rest of the inputs are legacy signed. they can be incorrectly counted as a segwit transaction even though their signatures dont sit in the weight area(the whole point of segwit)

(makes them stats even less reliable...)
.... (you will find the real stats are under 25%.. but yea a year later and less than 40%(i was trying to be nice and use biggr numbers in your favour.. but still proving a point that after a year thers no big segwit uptake)
did you even dare read that topic..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5051985.msg46980487#msg46980487
there is shown admitting that even if legacy has majority inclusion of a tx. its still treated as 100% segwit
so.. next time. if you want to prove me wrong. dont use a stat that actually proves me right. although i do love laughing when you prove me right. i still find it foolish that you have not done th research to have your own independant compelling information for you to make a good rebuttle. as its just wasting your time and mine
please try to do some independent research outside your lil group (year i recognise the regular buddies of yours merit swapping each other and just circle jerking the same mantra)
..

this here is the FLAW in YOUR repeated rhetoric
core have proven with the august 2017 event that they dont need community approval.
LUKE JR ADMITTED IT HIMSELF, as did others..
they disregarded 60% of the community with their coded tricks
(and dont you even dare try to poke the bear asking for the names of the tricks.. you tried that many times now.)

bilateral split, consensus bypass, nya agreement uasf, mandatory bypass. call the event whichever one you choose. ..
but you know all about it so no time to play dumb/ignorant. that game of yours is over. you cant play dumb now. you have had a year to learn

and the mandatory consensus bypass .... you call that conservative approach...
core use "conservative" as their way of saying "nah we wont do that, we will do this".. same as the tories

anyway you meandered this topic enough. and still just ended up with just you spouting insults.
now you admit you dont care. so go to the pub, watch some eastenders. then instead of your endless flood of meandering topics just to cause insult social drama. how about go research REAL STATS

oh. by the way. you may also notice compared to 2016-2017. the number of transactions DECREASED per week.. so although you may think that there are 40%+ using OPTING IN to segwit. there are not.
try reviewing real people / tx count/utxo count,

EG if there were lets say 2500 people buying a banana every week for years. suddenly a Kabana was invented.
now after the event you only see 2000 people buy any type of fruit. but you only see 800 people buy kabana.. even though they also buy banana at same time. does not mean there is a 40% kababa desire and 60% banana desire.
there is actually more than 60% banana desire and you will find that by default some kabanas have been thrown into peoples shopping by default via the fruit supplier
(yea core defaults change addresses to be segwit even if people didnt "opt-in"(your favourite word))
might be worth reading some code now and again, keep yourself upto date on the reality of bitcoin. oh and read about eltoo to keep uptodate about LN. seems your missing some uptodate info about factories

now here is a bit of funny...
do you know that sipa (main segwit guy) uses legacy addresses..
even funnier.
do you know since segwit. the tips/payments sipa gets from people who obviously think that he done a good job so are tipping him.. are not in any majority % at all tipping him in segwit tx format
just goes to show when an inventor does not use his invention and his fans dont tip him using his invention, means that somethings up

but then again. there are many funnies. like the paid dev's chairmen(vc funders) organising a bitcoin event, but you have to buy tickets in only fiat. (comedy gold)

I like his ideas much as all of them are great. I respect him and think that he is a great person able to brainstorm creative ideas like a genius mind. Hope soon he will braistorm another idea

If older nodes aren't compatible with Segwit, why can I send Segwit outputs to legacy addresses? Why can I receive payments from legacy addresses to my Segwit wallet? Why do older nodes accept Segwit transactions and blocks as valid?

You have a very strange definition of compatibility. ;)



You're making a distinction between full vs. partial validation, not compatibility. Also, non-Segwit nodes still validate transactions and blocks against their consensus rules. They don't "blindly" do anything.

"consensus" requires the agreement of all participants. that's why it's either "opt in" or "opt out". i don't care what luke jr says, and i'm guessing you're mischaracterizing what he said.

as long as miners don't partition the network by refusing to build on a soft fork's chain, then that soft fork is compatible with the existing consensus. this is why segwit nodes and legacy nodes coexist on the same network. if segwit violated consensus, segwit nodes (and all their blocks/transactions) would have been rejected by the bitcoin network.


on the contrary, my entire point is about network consensus and has nothing to do with developers. you, on the hand, seem extremely focused on the core devs and their evil ploys to take away your ability to "vote".......

Does the client you run do that?  No?  Then I guess you haven't opted in, have you?   *exasperated sigh*

One minute you're saying SegWit adoption is too low, then suddenly you're whining about default settings to help increase adoption?  I mean, pick an argument already.  Actually, don't bother, since it won't make rational sense anyway.




Sure franky1, whatever you say.   ::)

And stop double-posting, FFS.  There's an edit button for a reason.

Yeah i agree to you people knows satoshi creating this new technology of digital currency to help people for the easy and convenient usefull micropayment system anywhere in the world
More country's adopt this new digital currency because tgey knows how to help their country for ecnomic grow
The oginal goal of satoshi cpis to help for the people to got job use this digital currency.

Peer to peer internet transaction of was the basic idea of what satoshi outlined in his whitepaper and not as a form of investment as many perceive bitcoins today. Today out of greed, bitcoins is used by most people to scam and trick innocent people into ponzi scheme and other quick money scheme, meanwhile that is not the original idea of bitcoins.

firstly your talking about transactions. not nodes. (nice meander by the way..(facepalm))
learn about the network topology.
also older nodes do not accept segwit transactions as valid. the full validation check of a segwit transaction gets bypassed and is auto deemed as accepted. (not valid(there is a difference)) OLD NODES DO NOT SIGNATURE VERIFY A SEGWIT TX)
without choice to reject a segwit block (countering doomads endless belief thats it was an opt-in event. and counters the doomad belief that it was a consensus event)

when a old node gets a block and sees that a transaction paying thir legacy address was funded via a segwit input.. the node does not validate the signature of the segwit input.
the premiss(flaw) is that the devs are saying that for it to get into a block a segwit pool node would have validated it. and also the segwit cluster of relay nodes would have validated and relayed it. so by the time a legacy node gets the stripped version. that bypasses the validation check of the segwit transaction.. the node is suppose to just accept it as valid

(making the whole bip for the segwit adoption break the whole principle of people wanting to run a full validation node in a consensus network)
segwit should have only activated with a real 95% segwit verifying node adoption.. which it did not

now this raises the point doomad circles around but never grasps

imagine your a fully validating node. but you dont want to OPT-IN. you dont download the latest version to opt-in. thus you would think that you are a part of consensus giving a no to the vote.
the reality is you never got a vote. the event you would have thought was a consensus event where the community got a choice...that was actually bypassed.

if you reconfigured your node to actually reject segwit blocks. in the hopes of actually giving a real 'NO' vote.
you would have got banned off the network even before segwit blocks were made.

if you were a pool and didnt signal to opt in. it would not be treated as a 'no' vote. it got treated as you wanting to have your blocks rejected and your node banned off the network.
so after the august 1st date.. that was mandated the nodes that were left on the network were a smaller portion that were a mix of segwit validating nodes. and blind 'acceptance' pigeon english nodes (downstream/filtered nodes)

then a couple weeks later the block data changed format without your consent and you will instead be handed a stripped block that you cannot fully validate every transaction anymore. and you have been thrown down the network topology level to be a downstream/filtered node that only gets pigeon english data that bypasses full validation tests

anyway..
doomad and your chums.. again i do recognise you keep trying to meander the topic.. again and again. and again. funny part is you are trying to argue the history of something thats been discussed at length for atleast a year now.
yet you still have not shown that you have done independent research outside your cabin club of chums

and dont bother replying if all you want to do is insult. that trick doesnt work. all your doing is insulting a username that has no birth certificate so its not even defamation. thus you gain nothing from it. its like you are just insulting a wall of text.

maybe best you guys go do some independent research. and stop just repeating the same empty arguments that have been circling for the last year plus.

if you dont like my comments on the subject. then dont meander other topics to keep discussing it.
again if you dont want the bear to bite about a certain topic. then dont poke it with the certain topic stick
stop meandering the topic and then crying because i reply to talk about your meander
and then dont get emotional and become insulting as it doesnt help you in any way

p.s
opt-in. means you physically have to do something to show agreement of..
if you automatically get thrown in. but treated as second class citizen. thats not opting in
if you automatically get thrown out before anything actually changes.. thats not consensus

Can you give us any references and citations where this information came from? I really want to learn more.


The idea behind the Lightning Network is to have both low cost transactions, and a low cost in system validation through a layered architecture.

The internet itself is the same.


How? Consensus is still on-chain.


Bitcoin Cash supporters split the chain, maybe hoping to have everyone follow them. The miners activated Segwit on main-net. Let's move on and let the community choose what the want


What is Core's fault? They were waiting to get 95% miner signalling for readiness, or go home having nothing. The UASF was not supported by Core.


Are they trust-minimized? Are they better than Lightning?


While you stop gaslighting. If you have been posting facts, why would we argue with you?

windfury ill give you a little more respect than doomad as you dont always sling as much mud(insult) as much as him and others like lauda, carlton and the other club members i have seen you converse with.
but to put an end to the meandering
go here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5056910.0

Is Bitcoin still the bitcoin that Satoshi envisioned? Perhaps Satoshi’s Bitcoin concept has indeed succeeded, but unfortunately, the power of capital always not to be underestimated, interfering with and manipulating this market.

bitcoin is not th bitcoin satoshi envisioned any more..(bitcoins ethos and original idea started getting twisted as soon as he left but most notably since 2013-14) when diverse decentralisation became more so central referenced but distributed.. they even emphasised that decentralisation was diminishing by calling themselves the "CORE"(center) team

the core devs are now in control and mandate their own roadmap plan. even when the community cant agree core still push their agenda through by bypassing consensus.

these team think blockchains are broke and cant scale. yet its their own code that has the limit which they refuse to move(starve your kid so you can eat on another network then blame your kid for not growing)

the other network the team desire so much is not a blockchain. its not even locked to only serve bitcoin. its a separate network for multiple coins and bitcoin has been manipulated to fit that network, rather than that network getting manipulated to fit bitcoin

things have changed since this team took over in 2013-14. and all it is doing is having them impose restrictions on bitcoin utility while they promote a totally separate network as the future of electronic payments.
.. but as you can read by the meandered topic of that teams defence social group. they dont like it if people talk about how bitcoin has changed to suit the corporate roadmap

But franky1, Bitcoin is like any other software "experiment" that could fail. It evolves. Plus if "Satosh's Vision" was the goal then would you agree that Bitcoin Cash should be "The Bitcoin"? Do you believe their roadmap to achieve that vision to be technically superior than what the Core developers are doing?

if you think the only choice option is bitcoin core or bitcoin cash. then your still not seeing the bigger picture.
my main gripe is too many people think the only option is cores roadmap or F**k off

Since I learned about the existence of Bitcoin, I constantly admire the very idea of ​​its creation. It was so hard to invent it.

I don't know exactly what the purpose of Satoshi is to create bitcoin, maybe you are right that Satoshi wants to rebel the existing monetary system. I think Satoshi also understands the problem of trust and scalability in advance. Trust about bitcoin can be answered when Satoshi doesn't exist, but he forgets to renew scalability, even though when bitcoin experienced hardfork and gave birth to BCH that had a block size bigger than bitcoin, they still remained loyal to bitcoin. Maybe in the future, i think Satoshi will give birth to a more perfect new technology later, even though he doesn't call me Satoshi.  ;D

I'm not sure to argue with you but I think you should read this article: https://coinsutra.com/btc-vs-bch-bitcoin-cash/

that article has so main fails in it

1. bitcoin cash didnt not cause the bilateral split (consensus bypass on august 1st).
even the blockchain data can prove that by looking at the time stamp on the blockchains of which first made the diverting block(split)... (psst hint: it was core.. cash didnt even roll out until hours later. even the segwit fans made a big deal that cash didnt make a block for hours.. so how could cash instigate something if they couldnt even make a block to cause a controversal split(logic prevails over social drama tricks))
also the mandated USAF and the NYA were node shuffling tricks on the core network side..

2. people like ver are not coders. so thats a funny. you know.. its obvious.. oh wait. lets spell it out. ver didnt code it so how could he cause it.(he is just a social drama PR guy, not a dev)

3. cash is another network, they cant affect the core network so a year later people finger pointing at them .. makes no sense. do people point fingers at clams and worry clams is a threat?

the whole kardasian family drama of core vs cash is just a misdirection. just a ploy to not let people see what core actually did and instead of pointing to code proof. the finger pointers just point to the social drama of peoples faces, such as a video screen shot of a guy sticking up his middle finger (wow mega proof of code modification can be found in some pr guys middle finger)

to much attention is given to social drama tricks. yet it seems as soon as people talk about code, network protocol changes, all that happens in reply is mud slinging of insults. and more finger point of social drama of if you dont support core f**k off its their software let them control the network(facepalm)

the github changes stats are meaningless.. the majority of core changes are not for bitcoin network benefit. but to mutate bitcoin for LN network benefit.

I think Satoshi's idea was to create a currency that can help people gain back financial freedom from Central Banking, Banking and Government's dirty politics and surveillance.

Actually, no. This pertains to both transactions and nodes. They are inextricably linked. Segwit nodes can send Segwit outputs to legacy nodes. Legacy nodes can send legacy outputs to Segwit nodes.

This compatibility has absolutely nothing to do with network topology. You're just fundamentally confused about what "compatibility" means, or you're purposefully being dishonest.


Actually, they do accept Segwit transactions as valid. If they didn't, they would reject such blocks. You may want to review how invalidity is treated on the Bitcoin network. Blocks containing invalid transactions are simply ignored.

Legacy nodes can't validate the signature of a Segwit transaction. So what? They still validate the POW, the inputs and outputs, the scripts, etc. Everything is validated the same way as before. Legacy nodes are just 1) accepting and propagating valid transactions from/to the network or 2) receiving valid outputs that have already been accepted by the network.

Your fundamental issue here is with how the Bitcoin protocol works, not Segwit.


"Consensus" = the Bitcoin protocol's consensus rules. It's not some sort of a democratic vote or something -- that's never how Bitcoin (or any network) worked.

Segwit is 100% compatible with the consensus rules, so there is nothing for your node to "reject." There is no voting. It's either compatible or not. You don't have any say over that.

If you think node operators should be able to "vote" on everything other compatible nodes do, then you don't understand how networks operate. You don't get to decide what the rest of the network does. You can OPT-OUT if you want by shutting down your "pigeon English" node, but that's the extent of your power.

squatter. so much fail in your statements i think your just twisting things for entertainment

saying that a full node not signature validating deserves a "so what" response. goes to show you dont even understand the concept of being a full validation node.

as for saying one node sends an output to another node.. shows you dont understand what gets transmitted or the whole blockcreation, relay, validation. process

why oh why are soo many of the core defenders so lacking in basic concepts yet keep circling the same social drama play of meandering and bear poking.

squatter you might have better luck joining a kardashian fan club if your just going to follow the same tactics of the other guys.
have a nice day

The "tactic" of explaining exactly how Bitcoin with SegWit works, you mean?  Squatter makes more sense in a single post than you could ever make in a thousand.  



psst hint:  It was miners.  Core are a dev team, so how could Core instigate something if they definitely couldn't make a block because they aren't even mining?  (logic prevails over anything franky1 has ever posted in his life)

If you were actually capable of logic, you'd also understand that you don't need to have any hashpower at all to fork yourself off the network by running incompatible code.  Whether BCH had barely any hash or no hash at all, it makes no difference in the cold, hard light of uncompromising reality.  If I altered my node to enforce incompatible rules and not follow consensus, I can remove myself from the network at the very next block.  If I'm not mining, my new, incompatible chain will immediately stall.  Would that be Core's fault too in franky1's fantasy lalaland?

I see your strategy now. You throw out walls of text riddled with dishonest statements and inaccuracies, then you neglect to respond to any of the arguments other people make.

This is what I said:


Legacy nodes validate Segwit transactions in numerous ways. You obviously take serious issue with how Bitcoin scripts work. It upsets you that there are Bitcoin scripts that nodes validate to true without verifying a signature. That's an issue you have with the Bitcoin protocol.

This dynamic was part of Bitcoin's design since inception. Satoshi spoke about this in 2010:

In other words, if you want your node to fully understand every aspect of all transactions, then you should upgrade your node.

Refusing to upgrade to a compatible node isn't a matter of consensus. As long as all different versions remain forward and backward compatible, consensus has never been broken. That's why we're all still on the same network!


When you make a groundless statement like that, you should elaborate and explain how it works.

Then I can pick apart the inaccurate/dishonest statements. ;)

lol
do you even read code. read bips

the august 1st event. was not about block format.
the event was about a FLAG. yea bitcoin mining pools could have been running bitcoin v0.10 and making legacy blocks on august 1st.(your failure to understand)

 but they were threatened with the mandatory consensus bypass that unless they just simply change a version number (not change block format that requires segwit code).. simply change a version number. they would get their blocks rejected

yep CODE WRITTEN BY DEVS WOULD KILL OFF BLOCKS

it was the mandatory code made by core devs (luke JR and others) that made it that even pools using NON SEGWIT NODES HAD TO (not voluntary) flag a version number to prevent their LEGACY BLOCKS from being rejected

then when the CORE CODE misleadingly activated segwit due to the FAKE VOTE induced by the mandatory threat. weeks later would mining pools actually have to run segwit format blocks

it wasnt an opt-in. it was a stick this bumper sticker on your car to say your a fan, or get off the core road

read what you said atleast 3 times and actually recognise the flaw in why you think a full node should not care
if you think not verifying signatures is cool and fine. then i pitty your lack of care for bitcoin security

Core's roadmap? I have been looking all over bitcoin.org and on Github but I cannot find an "official" roadmap. Can you tell me what you believe Core's roadmap is?

here you go windfury
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
it was on bitcoin.org
heres the link direct
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

to answer the big issue of consensus bypass (core control the network) and can bypass consensus


read it multiple times without a core defense cap on. but with a bitcoin consensus/security cap on
core are saying they can now change the way the network does things without needing community approval

seriously, thinking not validating signature is ok??!
seriously thinking one team should be allowed to trojan in(inflight SF) new code without network approval(consensus) is ok!?

if anyone says yes to both points then you care nothing about the bitcoin network security and only care that core should be the monarchs
shame on you

Honestly franky1, I have been thinking about this, "would it be good if a group, or a group of influential groups control the nodes and do a UASF whenever they need to to satisfy their motives?".

That will be a good topic worthy to discuss to open the eyes of the community.

my reply would be
separate teams have separate software that all have their own proposals platform (suggestion box)
then the community(not one team) then poke at the suggestions and improve on them until all teams can agree on one master proposal

then when it comes to a fair agreement/compromise on a fair acceptance. each team then release a version of their software..
lets call it a B version. which thee community can download that includes the master proposal

EG core have version 0.17a which would be the normal version of current active rules. and then a 0.17b that includes the master proposal the community has should high agreement of
where the other teams also have a version B of the same master proposal

then if all the brands version B's show high activation.. then cores next 0.18a(active rules) would the activated master proposal
if the master proposal doesnt get consensus. the its just not activated...  and cores 0.18a wont have the master in it. but atleast each team would get to offer the CHOICE without any brand control fights

that way its not a you need to download only cores latest version or get kicked off the network. but people can download other teams too.. and where the proposal is a separate thing.. thus its not a brand debate. but a consensus debate because the proposals are not forced by any single brand as they are offered by all brands (as version b) while also letting users not be forced into it by them also having the currently active consensus version(a) available to 'no vote'

that way its actually consensus opt-in while having freedom to choose a brand..rather than a follow one team or else

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.

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

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2367229.msg24188879#msg24188879) 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. 

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.

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

Ditto to you.  The actual events (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2026756.msg20197191#msg20197191) show that BCH was going to be launched by ViaBTC (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2028193.0) whatever anyone on the BTC chain (devs, miners, users, literally anyone) decided.  The split was a foregone conclusion.  That's what happened.  

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...

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

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.

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:

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

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

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

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

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 (https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download) (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.  

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 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.

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

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...

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.