Satoshi Nakamoto: "Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa Network"

[calkob]

It is prophetic when we realize that he spelled "Bitcoin" with a capital "B"

It's like he could see the future or something

He could he was from 2120.  Thats the year that the Node wars start.  as humanity battle it out of node fees being introduced....

[sgbett]

A couple posts back I had to correct your flawed understanding of SPV mining. If there is something I have said that is factually incorrect please refute it with evidence and not opinion.

Sorry - I had to ignore the rest of your rubbish wall of text to ask you to repeat your correction of *my flawed understanding* (of anything to do with Bitcoin - little own SPV mining).

Please explain (I know - it is hard for you to even put more than one sentence of any logical value together but please try)?

(you are starting to act like that idiot @franky1 - maybe you are an alt of his - as his habit is to post walls of text starting with fallacies)

In one sentence

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

[CIYAM]

In one sentence

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

And?

Let me try and enlighten you: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Network

Anyone who is generating will collect valid received transactions and work on including them in a block. When someone does find a block, they send an inv containing it to all of their peers, as above. It works the same as transactions.

And then this:

Thin SPV Clients

BIP 0037 introduced support for thin or lite clients by way of Simple Payment Verification. SPV clients do not need to download the full block contents to verify the existence of funds in the blockchain, but rely on the chain of block headers and bloom filters to obtain the data they need from other nodes. This method of client communication allows high security trustless communication with full nodes, but at the expensive of some privacy as the peers can deduce which addresses the SPV client is seeking information about.

MultiBit and Bitcoin Wallet work in this fashion using the library bitcoinj as their foundation.

Perhaps that might help in particular (if you need any further "spoon feeding" then feel free to ask for it).

So not only have you demonstrated that you don't understand how the Bitcoin protocol works but you have also made a complete idiot of yourself trying to discredit me - still want to pursue this line of attack?

[sgbett]

I am always ready to learn, and quite happy to concede when I am wrong about something.

There are two things I would like specifically to learn, that you might be able to explain.

1. Where in the quoted text you provided is your assertion supported?

2. How and/or why BW.com would mine an empty block (401303) if they were not mining on just the block header from block 401302 which was mined by Antpool.

[CIYAM]

I am always ready to learn, and quite happy to concede when I am wrong about something.

Strange, but although you are ignorant and keep posting rubbish, you haven't conceded a single thing yet keep trying to attack me with your stupid nonsensical posts.

If you aren't @franky1's alt then you ought to team up with him as between the two of you perhaps you might almost have a quarter of a brain.

Unfortunately it is pointless to try and explain SPV mining to someone as dense as you as you simply can't grasp it (no matter how many times it is explained to you).

Perhaps try hiring a "brain coach" or the like?
(some people might even coach you out of pity for free - but that ain't me as I have a rather low tolerance of morons)

[sgbett]

I am always ready to learn, and quite happy to concede when I am wrong about something.

Strange - but although you are ignorant and keep posting rubbish you haven't conceded a single thing - yet keep trying to attack me with your stupid nonsensical posts.

If you aren't @franky1's alt then you ought to team up with him as between the two of you perhaps you might almost have a quarter of a brain.

Unfortunately it is pointless to try and explain SPV mining to someone as dense as you as you simply can't grasp it (no matter how many times it is explained to you).

Perhaps try hiring a "brain coach" or the like?
(some people might even coach you out of pity for free - but that ain't me as I have a rather low tolerance of morons)

Yes, I haven't conceded that I am wrong because you said:

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

Which is contradicted by evidence that I have posted (rubbish you called it) that suggests this is not true.

I am open minded enough to accept that I have misunderstood something. That every source I have was equally mistaken. That the evidence I have provided I have misinterpreted. (There is a chance BW.COM actually had the full block 401302, but just decided to mine an empty block, for example)

I'm wide open to be proven wrong, and I am more than happy to concede that you were correct about block headers only being sent to miners within your pool (though this does sound a bit like some kind of block withholding attack).

Given the whole premise of your argument about 64MB blocks is based on what *appears to be* flawed understanding, I think its fairly important to establish just exactly how SPV mining works in this regard, so that others that may read this thread don't make the same mistakes as I may have done.

[CIYAM]

SPV mining *is not proper mining*.

Is that not clear to you?

It is irrelevant whether or not they use the SPV protocol to do that so (and in fact they don't as they use the "relay network" which existed a long time before SPV support was added to Bitcoin) so your desperate attempts at trying to discredit me are failing and just making you look even more stupid.

If you mine that way then you end up on a fork (as has already happened) and as I have already tried to explain (but seemingly you are incapable of understanding) the larger you make the blocks then the easier it would be to trick other miners into mining on such forks.

And btw - the only *flawed understanding* here is your own.

[Cuidler]

The only way to find out whether Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa network is remove blocksize limit and watch free market to find what blocks are miners able to handle. The ones who supporting artifical limit capping are regulators (tyrans) who dont believe in free market finding optimal and perfect solution by itselves, or protectionists who believe basically every piece of hardware like Rasberry PIs should be capable to be used as full nodes - ignoring the reality every computing intensive software trying to be competetive on market must have mnimum requirements set to about average home PC spec otherwise it become unused over time.

[QuestionAuthority]

I can't believe how many people are blaspheming our lord and savior Satoshi in this thread. You can't call him a visionary genius in one breath and a dumbass in another.

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens. If it fails then it was always a stupid idea and fuck Bitcoin. If it succeeds then cheer in the streets about how brilliant you all are for investing in this wonderful new techonology. What ever you bitches do, don't spend the next 2 years pissing and moaning about the problem while taking no action.

[CIYAM]

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens.

Why - because you say so?

Hey - let's just raise it to 64MB then see what happens.

(who cares if billions of dollars are destroyed - what's important is that we have fun)

[QuestionAuthority]

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens.

Why - because you say so?

Hey - let's just raise it to 64MB then as see what happens.

Well fuck dude. No one is doing shit except bitching at each other. Make some god damn decision already.

[CIYAM]

Well fuck dude. No one is doing shit except bitching at each other. Make some god damn decision already.

There is plenty of stuff going on - it is just the idiots on this forum (who are mostly seemingly paid by Gavin's supporters) who need to have a block size increase *this week*.

In the "real world" no-one is even using Bitcoin for much at all (do all your family and friends use it for daily txs?).

Supposedly according to Mike Hearn it should already have died yet strangely enough the price is still over 400 USD (higher than when he declared it to be dead in the first place).

[road to morocco]

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens.

Why - because you say so?

Hey - let's just raise it to 64MB then see what happens.

What do you think would happen? People who didn't spam 1MB blocks would suddenly want to spend 64 times as much money to spam the 64MB blocks?

[QuestionAuthority]

Well fuck dude. No one is doing shit except bitching at each other. Make some god damn decision already.

There is plenty of stuff going on - it is just the idiots on this forum (who are mostly seemingly paid by Gavin's supporters) who need to have a block size increase *this week*.

So what's going to happen? What can we expect? More rage quits? More secret meetings? You yourself have called for the miners to take action. Is that going to happen?

[CIYAM]

So what's going to happen? What can we expect? More rage quits? More secret meetings? You yourself have called for the miners to take action. Is that going to happen?

It seems that the miners are mostly backing Bitcoin Core but I am not acting on behalf of Bitcoin Core (as I'm sure many want to accuse me of).

At the end of the day it is up to them as to whether a fork happens or not.

One thing I do know about is Chinese (as I live in China) and that is that they do not co-operate with each other (something that many westerners that come to business here are initially rather surprised at considering that they have the world's largest population for a single country).

[QuestionAuthority]

So what's going to happen? What can we expect? More rage quits? More secret meetings? You yourself have called for the miners to take action. Is that going to happen?

It seems that the miners are mostly backing Bitcoin Core but I am not acting on behalf of Bitcoin Core (as I'm sure many want to accuse me of).

At the end of the day it is up to them as to whether a fork happens or not.

One thing I do know about is Chinese (as I live in China) - they do not co-operate with each other.

Do you know how much longer this two year old discussion/decision is going to take to implement?

[CIYAM]

Do you know how much longer this two year old discussion/decision is going to take to implement?

From what I gather the SegWit stuff should be able to be done in a couple of months and then we'd expect further improvements later this year (and maybe a hard fork early to mid next year).

If this is handled properly (and not with the "kicking the can" approach that Gavin and others keep trying to push) then this should become a non-issue within a year or so.

[YarkoL]

That's very interesting, so what he's saying is that the network should have no problems handling an increase in the amount of transactions then. Was this limit put in to prevent people from spamming transactions until there was enough network hashing power to cope with an increase if I'm understanding this correctly?

Here's some more interesting early history

For what it's worth: 

I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code.  Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB.  Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.  But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Unlike current Core devs, Satoshi was not obsessed by adversaries.
He thought Moore's law would keep up with the scalability demands, and
he was ok with validation restricted to specialized nodes "with multiple GPU cards" as
he puts it in the message to Hearn.

[CIYAM]

He thought Moore's law would keep up with the scalability demands...

Moore's law has never applied to bandwidth (so if Satoshi really thought that then clearly he wasn't a genius was he).

Or perhaps you think that because Satoshi could never be wrong then if he said that "Moore's Law" applies to bandwidth it actually does?

[QuestionAuthority]

Do you know how much longer this two year old discussion/decision is going to take to implement?

From what I gather the SegWit stuff should be able to be done in a couple of months and then we'd expect further improvements later this year (and maybe a hard fork early to mid next year).

If this is handled properly (and not with the "kicking the can" approach that Gavin and others keep trying to push) then this should become a non-issue within a year or so.

If that schedule actually happens that's great. Maybe I just have too much faith in Bitcoin. I don't think it can be broken or destroyed that easily. Even by someone as self important and manipulative as Andresen.