Satoshi Nakamoto PLEASE resolve this debate? 1MB blockstream vs 8MB Gavin Blocks
<< < (7/16) > >>
Westin Landon Cox:
Satoshi's views shouldn't be the deciding factor. But ...

I suspect the recent email really was from Satoshi.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Quote from: satoshi?

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto


Doubters said it was from a "hacked" email address, but it was the gmx email that was hacked, not the vistomail email. And the vistomail email address does date back to the beginning of bitcoin.

Doubters said the "real" Satoshi would've signed the message. But Satoshi never signed his messages. And, in any case, signing it would've undermined his message that even he should not be considered a charismatic leader that can make modifications to the consensus rules without near unanimous agreement.
Muhammed Zakir:
Quote from: AGD on August 30, 2015, 06:00:13 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 30, 2015, 05:37:52 AM

In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead.

However, he fortunately already expressed an opinion about increasing the blocksize before he disappeared:

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Sounds like he was in favor of increasing the block size when it is needed.  The only question is:

"Is it needed yet?"


His quote about blocksize is exactly what core devs should be doing right now. Most of the XT discussion would be obsolete, when intelligent blocksize raising would come into effect. There are enough parameters that could be used to automate the process. Give the people enough time to adapt to the hard fork and anything should be running smoothly.

BTW, I agree, that it pretty much looks like SN is dead. I would even say, his death must have hit him by surprise. He had no time to move his coins.


What Satoshi is saying in the given example is, if number of blocks is greater than 115000, then maximum block size limit should be increased. He is not telling what the maximum block size limit should be.
RGBKey:
Quote from: odolvlobo on August 30, 2015, 04:50:19 AM

As someone else has already pointed out, if a single person such as Satoshi is needed to resolve this issue or any issue, then Bitcoin is a failure.

True, we should be able to work this out on our own through consensus, but the bitcoin network isn't made of individual people all running their own node any more. It's getting more centralized than it should. People don't know as much ad they should.
NorrisK:
Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 30, 2015, 06:23:44 PM

Quote from: AGD on August 30, 2015, 06:00:13 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 30, 2015, 05:37:52 AM

In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead.

However, he fortunately already expressed an opinion about increasing the blocksize before he disappeared:

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Sounds like he was in favor of increasing the block size when it is needed.  The only question is:

"Is it needed yet?"


His quote about blocksize is exactly what core devs should be doing right now. Most of the XT discussion would be obsolete, when intelligent blocksize raising would come into effect. There are enough parameters that could be used to automate the process. Give the people enough time to adapt to the hard fork and anything should be running smoothly.

BTW, I agree, that it pretty much looks like SN is dead. I would even say, his death must have hit him by surprise. He had no time to move his coins.


What Satoshi is saying in the given example is, if number of blocks is greater than 115000, then maximum block size limit should be increased. He is not telling what the maximum block size limit should be.


8 mb is also quite an arbitrary number itself. The biggest message here is that we should not be afraid of a bigger max block size when needed. How high it should go is just a tiny detail.
Carlton Banks:
Quote from: Amph on August 30, 2015, 03:57:06 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 30, 2015, 07:24:34 AM

Quote from: Amph on August 30, 2015, 07:13:43 AM

well it does not look like the consensus mechanic is working either,


Why do you say that?

Bitcoin is still working just fine.

If someone wants to implement a variation on the protocol, they can go ahead and do that.  If they get enough people that join their protocol variation, then they will have a consensus among their participants.




because apparently it seems that miners can dictate their decision, and in the end besides merchants common people can not really vote, or their votes will be negligeable


Just don't use a given cryptocoin after a hard fork you don't like. Miners won't mine and merchants won't accept a currency that has zero users. The users have all the power, but no "votes"
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page