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

[maokoto]

I think that the statement is true: "Bitcoin CAN [not that it will neccessarily] scale larger than the Visa Network". It seems like that is far away yet, and blocksize would likely be solved one way or another if adoption were increasing at a good rate.

[1714099445]

1714099445

[1714099445]

1714099445

[1714099445]

1714099445

[1714099445]

1714099445

[Etalia]

If this is true and not a bluff this could be very big for Bitcoin. To be able to surpass visa is quiet an accomplishment.
We will just have to wait on what the future brings.

[hv_]

Can someone please explain to me how we have these Satoshi quotes and yet there is still any discussion / debate / disagreement on it?  

The quote says one thing, reality says another.

Reality = right now you can't get to a blocksize where you can do visa level tx capacity.

And this is similarly true, not only for bitcoin, but bitcoin-based clones and other blockchain-based systems.

The Real Reality says you can increase the block size as demand grows, and Bitcoin Cash is the real example of that.

Nope- BCH has a limit on blocks - but not on code altering

[hv_]

There is no upper limit for cryptocurrency exchanges on www.changenow.io  You can as well make use of visa or master cards to make purchase of crypto assets on ChangeNow. This is a non custodial exchange that gives more to experience

Sigh

sadly there is no limit (yet) on creating different tokens - only clear ICOs or security tokens got 'limited'

The world needs only 1 open value transfer protocol - and that needs just enough capacity to do the job

that should be Bitcoin Consensus Rule 1

next max 21 Million coins

next interest curve / how to mine those coins

...

Consensus rules on txs volume policy -> rekt ,  cause consensus is: max adoption


job done

[Alucard1]

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

• Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
• The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
• In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

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.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

Satoshi nakamoto is getting debated due to being desperate of each crypto users to know and to reveal it's identity and personality. Everyone wants to know the real identity of Satoshi nakamoto and thank him for everything that he done because without him, there are no crypto currency. Even me, if I have a chance to meet and greet Satoshi nakamoto, I am going to thank him until the end of the day and I know that it is not enough to thank him.

[cosmicrays]

I think it was obvious from the very beginning. Bitcoin and crypto in general are literally an ocean of possibilities and use cases, including scaling.

[Folio]

In the last week I have read a lot, a lot of articles regarding this block-size issue.
I have read very good arguments from the yes side and the no side. One hour I thought "good, they saved bitcoin decentralization" and the next hour I thought "damn, this greedy group has destroyed Satoshi's vision".

There are the original words of Satoshi that clearly indicate that the block size limit was just a temporary fix and that he wanted bitcoin to perform better than visa.

Now I am sick of this topic and I hope I can remove it from my head.

If Satoshi is still alive as I think he is and reads this I tell him this: this issue has created a very big and ugly division in the bitcoin world, you should address it. Move a few coins from your wallet and sign a message in which you yourself declare what has to be done regarding the block size. Only that would stop this conflict.
You can do it safely and effectively, so do it.

[sgbett]

In the last week I have read a lot, a lot of articles regarding this block-size issue.
I have read very good arguments from the yes side and the no side. One hour I thought "good, they saved bitcoin decentralization" and the next hour I thought "damn, this greedy group has destroyed Satoshi's vision".

There are the original words of Satoshi that clearly indicate that the block size limit was just a temporary fix and that he wanted bitcoin to perform better than visa.

Now I am sick of this topic and I hope I can remove it from my head.

If Satoshi is still alive as I think he is and reads this I tell him this: this issue has created a very big and ugly division in the bitcoin world, you should address it. Move a few coins from your wallet and sign a message in which you yourself declare what has to be done regarding the block size. Only that would stop this conflict.
You can do it safely and effectively, so do it.

N-N-N-Necropost! 

Blocksize debate is done. If you like 1MB you stick with BTC if you like no limit then you go with BSV. There's nothing to debate any more!

Satoshi has explained exactly what should happen, but "proof of satoshi" requires a lot more than moving coins.

All that proves is that someone with the keys for those coins, moved the coins.

[hv_]

In the last week I have read a lot, a lot of articles regarding this block-size issue.
I have read very good arguments from the yes side and the no side. One hour I thought "good, they saved bitcoin decentralization" and the next hour I thought "damn, this greedy group has destroyed Satoshi's vision".

There are the original words of Satoshi that clearly indicate that the block size limit was just a temporary fix and that he wanted bitcoin to perform better than visa.

Now I am sick of this topic and I hope I can remove it from my head.

If Satoshi is still alive as I think he is and reads this I tell him this: this issue has created a very big and ugly division in the bitcoin world, you should address it. Move a few coins from your wallet and sign a message in which you yourself declare what has to be done regarding the block size. Only that would stop this conflict.
You can do it safely and effectively, so do it.

N-N-N-Necropost! 

Blocksize debate is done. If you like 1MB you stick with BTC if you like no limit then you go with BSV. There's nothing to debate any more!

Satoshi has explained exactly what should happen, but "proof of satoshi" requires a lot more than moving coins.

All that proves is that someone with the keys for those coins, moved the coins.

Correct.

Nothing to add

[BitcoinFX]

Lots to add ...

Hal Finney knew it ... December 30, 2010 ...

...snip... Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

...snip...

Imagine all those BSV folks thinking that unlimited data storage in addition to transactions is going to work out well long-term. 

Imagine trying to store the entire internet in every Bitcoin block. Anyone involved with BSV is an absolute complete and utter total plank.

...snip...

...

Signing a Verifiable message with early BTC addresses associated with Satoshi would prove a darn sight more than Craig Wright has to-date.

Also, Satoshi has a PGP Key ...

...snip...

It would be easy for the real Satoshi Nakamoto to prove identity using Bitcoin and/or PGP with signed messages and other evidence.

For future reference, here's my public key.  It's the same one that's been there since the bitcoin.org site first went up in 2008.  Grab it now in case you need it later.

http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

For some unknown reason the key is not currently hosted on bitcoin.org , however the original key is hosted on this forum here:

- https://bitcointalk.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
and
- https://web.archive.org/web/20110228054007/http://www.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc

Satoshi Nakamoto
E-mail: satoshin@gmx.com (the same email address as the bitcoin whitepaper)

Public Key
Key ID: 18C09E865EC948A1

...snip...

BSV is NOT Bitcoin and Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi.

- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html

[hv_]

Add only proof of panic, like true big blogger.

 

[jpnl0006]

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

• Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
• The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
• In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

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.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

The blockchain network is much more robust than the Visa Network. I see the Blockchain or Bitcoin newtork is the way forward as people are more confident in the transaction that concerns bitcoin rather than Visa and I see  the bitcoin network having more reviews and upgrades to help the network scale further even in the future.

[Cryptoreflector_666]

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

• Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
• The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
• In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

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.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

The blockchain network is much more robust than the Visa Network. I see the Blockchain or Bitcoin newtork is the way forward as people are more confident in the transaction that concerns bitcoin rather than Visa and I see  the bitcoin network having more reviews and upgrades to help the network scale further even in the future.

In my opinion, bitcoin is much slower than a visa, but you remain anonymous. It seems to me that both bitcoin and visa should remain in the world, because they perform different functions in essence. There are different functions and there should be different ways to solve them.

[hv_]

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

• Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
• The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
• In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

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.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

The blockchain network is much more robust than the Visa Network. I see the Blockchain or Bitcoin newtork is the way forward as people are more confident in the transaction that concerns bitcoin rather than Visa and I see  the bitcoin network having more reviews and upgrades to help the network scale further even in the future.

In my opinion, bitcoin is much slower than a visa, but you remain anonymous. It seems to me that both bitcoin and visa should remain in the world, because they perform different functions in essence. There are different functions and there should be different ways to solve them.

Nope, not anonymous at all, traceable for a reason of trust of public ledger

[suryogandul]

bitcoin scale does have a bigger potential than visa. but remember it's just that bitcoin can not be like a visa that clearly has freedom for all things. there are still countries that prohibit the use of bitcoin so that now visas are still on a bigger scale

[Sadlife]

Its possible that Bitcoin could scale exceed the current process of paypal but there's a problem with that, the issue is the halving functionality. Without incentives miners wouldn't create nodes to mine and process transactions,
and the recent drop of hashrate is because of people given up on Bitcoin mining difficulty and lower rewards in processing blocks.

[0nline]

BTCBTC Good luck, you will surely need it. Now since you don't use technical arguments or anything I'd ask you kindly to not derail this thread further. These is at least one person that seems decent in it and worth talking to.