Satoshi Nakamoto PLEASE resolve this debate? 1MB blockstream vs 8MB Gavin Blocks

[worhiper_-_]

Wasn't there an email sent by an email address previously used by satoshi? Theymos didn't specifically say that it was fake, so I think that we can't be 100% if this was indeed satoshi but it could actually be him. Quote from theymos form a reddit post he made:

Also, someone who could be Satoshi posted here. This email address was actually used by Satoshi before he left, and the email apparently did come from that email address legitimately (not a spoof). Whether he's actually Satoshi or not, I agree with what he's saying.

[RGBKey]

I agree with that quote, whether its real or not. If those two people can change what bitcoin is against the majority will of users, them people aren't doing it right.

[Westin Landon Cox]

Wasn't there an email sent by an email address previously used by satoshi? Theymos didn't specifically say that it was fake, so I think that we can't be 100% if this was indeed satoshi but it could actually be him. Quote from theymos form a reddit post he made:

Also, someone who could be Satoshi posted here. This email address was actually used by Satoshi before he left, and the email apparently did come from that email address legitimately (not a spoof). Whether he's actually Satoshi or not, I agree with what he's saying.

Yes. I linked to it and reposted it in this thread. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166153.msg12283811#msg12283811

[Mickeyb]

It's hard for me to "think like Satoshi" -- but I doubt he's bothered that people doubted the email was from him. He's more likely to be bothered that the message didn't make a difference. Read this sentence again:

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.

If I were Satoshi and saw the very real possibility that Bitcoin was to be a failed project, then I'd give some kind of warning (like the email above) and then I'd start quietly selling the bitcoins least associated with my identity.

Look, I can't say that you are wrong or right a 100%. Same goes for my opinion. We just don't know for sure, both of us. I still hope a bit more that you are wrong, since I really wouldn't want to see Satoshi start selling his coins! 

[johnyj]

It's unbelievable that there are so many people will lose their mind when their leader disappears

[Brad Harrison]

Guys Satoshi is already on Mars building a pyramid

[RGBKey]

It's unbelievable that there are so many people will lose their mind when their leader disappears

To be fair he was never really here to begin with...he showed up, dropped off bitcoin then left. We've been without him for most of the time bitcoin has been alive.

[jasonzervou17]

I agree. This should be removed.

[AGD]

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

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

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.

The point is NOT how Satoshi thought the raising process could be achieved, but that he is pro blocksize raising when needed. He already made his point to the current discussion years ago, so there is no need for him to come back and repeat it.

As I already said, there are more than enough parameters to automate the process. Number of blocks is surely the simplest, but it doesn't refer to any needs of the network in the future. For example, size of the blocks itself over a certain amount of time blocks might be a more accurate parameter.

[xDan]

If Satoshi is dead, he must have been Hal Finney.  ....If he or she or they are still alive... it would not help to intervene here... There will to my knowledge not be a 100%

Satoshi was Hal Finney implementing Szabo's idea

Satoshi's views shouldn't be the deciding factor. But ...

I suspect the recent email really was from Satoshi.

Doubters said it was from a "hacked" email address, but it was the gmx email that was hacked, not the vistomail email.

Correction: It was the gmx email that was publicly "hacked". You think the people currently DoSing XT nodes are incapable of changing the "from" address on some minor league email service?

Conclusion: That email should only be considered with respect to the content, which is not at all unique and contains precisely zero technical arguments. It basically just claims that if a majority hashpower decides to do what a majority hashpower has always done, i.e. enforce the will of the majority, then Bitcoin is a failed project. If that really was Satoshi, then Satoshi has stated that Bitcoin has failed. Chew on that. (And maybe find a different project, if you can't handle a "failed" but still useful Bitcoin.)

[Westin Landon Cox]

Satoshi's views shouldn't be the deciding factor. But ...

I suspect the recent email really was from Satoshi.

Doubters said it was from a "hacked" email address, but it was the gmx email that was hacked, not the vistomail email.

Correction: It was the gmx email that was publicly "hacked". You think the people currently DoSing XT nodes are incapable of changing the "from" address on some minor league email service?

I'm not sure how this is a "correction," since you seem to be agreeing that the gmx email is the one that we know was hacked. As far as faking an email from vistomail, it's not just a matter of changing the "From." According to what I read, the headers are correct and (apparently) have been proven to be from the vistomail mail servers. If it's fake (and it may well be), the most likely way it was faked is that Satoshi let his vistomail address expire and then someone else was able to make a "satoshi" account.

Conclusion: That email should only be considered with respect to the content, which is not at all unique and contains precisely zero technical arguments. It basically just claims that if a majority hashpower decides to do what a majority hashpower has always done, i.e. enforce the will of the majority, then Bitcoin is a failed project.

Mining has never been about enforcing the will of the majority. Of course, if 51% of the miners cooperated they could do a few bad things (take 100% of the block rewards, roll back blocks, exclude transactions, etc.). This is called a "51% attack" and has generally been considered a bad thing. In fact, some wise member has a sig here: "Democracy: the original 51% attack." It's never been the case that 51% of miners could change the protocol.

It's honestly scary to me how many people into Bitcoin think it's some kind of democracy. If it had ever seemed so to me, I'd never have been interested.

If that really was Satoshi, then Satoshi has stated that Bitcoin has failed. Chew on that. (And maybe find a different project, if you can't handle a "failed" but still useful Bitcoin.)

I have a lot of respect for Satoshi. If he considers Bitcoin has failed, I hope he maximizes his profit on the way out (and he deserves as much as he can get) and I hope he moves on to other projects.

[spazzdla]

Satoshi Nakamoto,

Please come out of hiding and resolve this debate.

1MB Blockstream vs 8MB Gavin Blocks?

I really love Bitcoin and don't want to see it go down in flames.

Thanks,
Your friend and admirer.

This is why Satoshi must NEVER come back.  Satsohi's word will be taken as if he/she was a god...  Such power cannot exisit if a system to be open to choice.

[maokoto]

Probably Satoshi has already given its opinion without telling who he is.

[ebliever]

While he's at it, why can't Satoshi tell us who to vote for as the next president in the U.S.A.? It would save so much trouble over having to work it out for myself.
/sarcasm

OP needs to consider that an appeal to authority is only a substitute for valid argument, not a valid argument in itself. If Satoshi cares to voice an opinion, it only has weight insofar as it utilizes sound logic and accurate data in an effort to reach a good end. But such reasoning is available to everyone, it is not the province of only some mystic elite. Don't get me wrong, I think very highly of him and his genius. But it doesn't make him infallible even within the realm of bitcoin options.

[S4VV4S]

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

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

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?"

Almost certainly?
Like in cryogenics let's say?

Also, I would say that it is not needed yet mainly because tx no is still low and apart from that any change made to the protocol without full consensus is a mistake IMO.
There will be a winning and a losing side where there should ONLY be one side and that is no side
This is not politics. It's the future of money which might become the past if not handled properly.

[Eastwind]

Probably Satoshi has already given its opinion without telling who he is.

That is the spirit. Satoshi has the same weight as other people.

[Hazir]

It's unbelievable that there are so many people will lose their mind when their leader disappears

To be fair he was never really here to begin with...he showed up, dropped off bitcoin then left. We've been without him for most of the time bitcoin has been alive.

1. People are like herd animals, they need leaders. Most of us are followers and not leaders or commanders. We like to receive orders and follow them. That is the human neture.
That is why we need extraordinary characters to push humanity forward. Satoshi was one of these gifted people. Rest of will is just following his path.

2. Satoshi created Bitcoin and left it to us. That move to left bitcoin to peole was the greatest plan. He know that he could not be always around to lead bitcoin.
So if we can keep bitcoin alive by ourselves then we are not worthy of haveing it.

[miragecash]

Very wise words, both from you and from Satoshi Nakamoto:

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

It's unbelievable that there are so many people will lose their mind when their leader disappears

To be fair he was never really here to begin with...he showed up, dropped off bitcoin then left. We've been without him for most of the time bitcoin has been alive.

1. People are like herd animals, they need leaders. Most of us are followers and not leaders or commanders. We like to receive orders and follow them. That is the human neture.
That is why we need extraordinary characters to push humanity forward. Satoshi was one of these gifted people. Rest of will is just following his path.

2. Satoshi created Bitcoin and left it to us. That move to left bitcoin to peole was the greatest plan. He know that he could not be always around to lead bitcoin.
So if we can keep bitcoin alive by ourselves then we are not worthy of haveing it.

[ShamrockHannah]

Satoshi should come and show his face at some point. How can he come up with such an amazing concept then just disappear?  It doesn't make sense

[Eastwind]

It's unbelievable that there are so many people will lose their mind when their leader disappears

In bitcoin world, there is no leader.