Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2018, 09:15:55 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Could Satoshi come back and tell us what he/her thinks about the block size?  (Read 6170 times)
BrannigansLaw
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 603
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 25, 2013, 09:39:18 AM
 #21

I know nothing about Satoshi. Did anyone actually know him? as in see him day to day? Could have just won the lottery, could have died, in a coma, or 'taken out'. Who knows...
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1542748555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542748555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542748555
Reply with quote  #2

1542748555
Report to moderator
1542748555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542748555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542748555
Reply with quote  #2

1542748555
Report to moderator
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1006


View Profile
February 25, 2013, 12:48:54 PM
 #22

He communicated with a few of the core developers before leaving. He told myself and Gavin that he had moved on to other things and that the project was in good hands.
BrannigansLaw
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 603
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 25, 2013, 01:18:01 PM
 #23

He communicated with a few of the core developers before leaving. He told myself and Gavin that he had moved on to other things and that the project was in good hands.

Are you still in contact with him? Get him to do an AMA on reddit or something. I don't know how he will prove it but yeah that would be amazing.
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1001


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
February 25, 2013, 02:21:24 PM
 #24

This debate on the maximum block size is getting more religious everyday. Now we beg the Creator for His Second Coming, or at least to speak to His prophet here on earth to tell us, humble mortals, how we should deal with this issue. And if He doesn't come soon, we will get into a debate on how we should interpret His Holy Scriptures.

Satoshi's opinion would help the community to decide, not because he is more competent than the current core developers, not because he is an authority figure but because it would reassure investor confidence.

People invested in bitcoin because they expected bitcoin to behave in a certain way in future.  In some cases, this expectation was based on the assumption that there is an implicit contract or consensus that the protocol is set in stone (a flawed assumption perhaps).   In other cases, this expectation was based on Satoshi's word.

Satoshi's opinion matters simply because many investors/stakeholders think it matters.

 

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 25, 2013, 02:33:12 PM
 #25

Satoshi's opinion would help the community to decide, not because he is more competent that the current core developers, not because he is an authority figure but because it would reassure investor confidence.

If not because of competence, that means it would be irrational for them to base confidence on it. Hence the analogy of religion. Those investors need to get over it an inform themselves of the debate.
Zomdifros
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 25, 2013, 03:07:24 PM
 #26


Satoshi's opinion matters simply because many investors/stakeholders think it matters.
 

Sure, but even if he proposes a solution, not everyone will agree immediately. From what I understood of the whole debate, there is currently an experiment going on with an artificial, although not mandatory, limit of 250 KB. Gavin proposed to wait and see how the network responds to this limit, then to implement a solution.

Although I was somewhat worried when I first heard a hard fork was needed to raise the 1 MB limit, I'm quite confident right now that we have plenty of time to come up with a solution that would generate enough transaction fees for mining to be profitable even in the distant future, the network to be decentralized enough that it can withstand any kind of disruption and still create the largest transaction capacity possible.

I believe the whole thing is largely overblown right now. Once everybody calms down, investor confidence will remain high. I do agree it will be a good thing to hear this from the core dev team themselves though.

BitCoinsLOL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 215
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 25, 2013, 05:13:36 PM
 #27

Satoshi is Keyser Söze

I never thought my life could be. Anything but catastrophe. But suddenly I begin to see. A "BIT" of good luck for me. Cause I've got a golden ticket!
The Fool
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 25, 2013, 05:25:57 PM
 #28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Identity

Ask Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry about the block limit and see what they think.
n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 25, 2013, 11:54:43 PM
 #29

Although I was somewhat worried when I first heard a hard fork was needed to raise the 1 MB limit, I'm quite confident right now that we have plenty of time to come up with a solution that would generate enough transaction fees for mining to be profitable even in the distant future, the network to be decentralized enough that it can withstand any kind of disruption and still create the largest transaction capacity possible.

I believe the whole thing is largely overblown right now. Once everybody calms down, investor confidence will remain high. I do agree it will be a good thing to hear this from the core dev team themselves though.

This, 1000 times this.

I'm quite confident that, when the time comes and after thorough research and discussions, Gavin & core  team will propose a consensus solution that 99.99% of the community can live with.

BTW for hints regarding developer sentiment on this topic, you might want to follow #bitcoin-dev.  Jeff Garzik also has a blog post today, presenting his viewpoint which I consider quite lucid and mostly agree with (except for the "2" constant, which will undoubtedly be fine tuned into something else):

http://garzikrants.blogspot.fr/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

Monster Tent
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 26, 2013, 01:46:02 AM
 #30

Although I was somewhat worried when I first heard a hard fork was needed to raise the 1 MB limit, I'm quite confident right now that we have plenty of time to come up with a solution that would generate enough transaction fees for mining to be profitable even in the distant future, the network to be decentralized enough that it can withstand any kind of disruption and still create the largest transaction capacity possible.

I believe the whole thing is largely overblown right now. Once everybody calms down, investor confidence will remain high. I do agree it will be a good thing to hear this from the core dev team themselves though.

This, 1000 times this.

I'm quite confident that, when the time comes and after thorough research and discussions, Gavin & core  team will propose a consensus solution that 99.99% of the community can live with.

BTW for hints regarding developer sentiment on this topic, you might want to follow #bitcoin-dev.  Jeff Garzik also has a blog post today, presenting his viewpoint which I consider quite lucid and mostly agree with (except for the "2" constant, which will undoubtedly be fine tuned into something else):

http://garzikrants.blogspot.fr/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html




Quote
jg: "it is a mistake to increase block size simply because people are too lazy to implement layers on top of bitcoin."

This I agree with. Apps that use bitcoin  need to change to be more efficient not the underlying protocol or not without a damn good reason.

Zomdifros
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 26, 2013, 09:51:22 AM
 #31

Although I was somewhat worried when I first heard a hard fork was needed to raise the 1 MB limit, I'm quite confident right now that we have plenty of time to come up with a solution that would generate enough transaction fees for mining to be profitable even in the distant future, the network to be decentralized enough that it can withstand any kind of disruption and still create the largest transaction capacity possible.

I believe the whole thing is largely overblown right now. Once everybody calms down, investor confidence will remain high. I do agree it will be a good thing to hear this from the core dev team themselves though.

This, 1000 times this.

I'm quite confident that, when the time comes and after thorough research and discussions, Gavin & core  team will propose a consensus solution that 99.99% of the community can live with.

BTW for hints regarding developer sentiment on this topic, you might want to follow #bitcoin-dev.  Jeff Garzik also has a blog post today, presenting his viewpoint which I consider quite lucid and mostly agree with (except for the "2" constant, which will undoubtedly be fine tuned into something else):

http://garzikrants.blogspot.fr/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html


Great post by Jeff, I completely agree with him. The nice thing about the whole block-size discussion is that if the biggest problem we have within Bitcoin right now is hardly a problem at all, it must mean the system is incredibly strong.

felipelalli
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 226
Merit: 101


Hi! I am the Bitcoin Paranoid developer.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2014, 06:49:57 AM
 #32

Any news about this?

~ 1LipeR1AjHL6gwE7WQECW4a2H4tuqm768N

Bitrated user: felipelalli.
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1012


Monero Core Team


View Profile
September 01, 2014, 02:48:15 AM
 #33

Any news about this?

No not much. Here is a graph that illustrates this issue very well. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.4680 The prediction is that we will reach the 1MB blocksize limit somewhere between March and October 2015.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
AGD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1720
Merit: 1038


Keeper of the Private Key


View Profile
September 01, 2014, 05:42:27 AM
 #34

R.I.P. Satoshi.

Bitcoin is not a bubble, it's the pin!
+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1C680D74DB714D40
Window2Wall
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 01, 2014, 06:21:37 AM
 #35

Any news about this?

No not much. Here is a graph that illustrates this issue very well. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.4680 The prediction is that we will reach the 1MB blocksize limit somewhere between March and October 2015.
The max block size can easily be increased. There are many more ways to transfer large amounts of data that were not available in 2009 (for downloading the entire blockchain) and bandwidth capabilities are much greater today then they were in 2009 (for transmitting newly found blocks).
Marlo Stanfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 275



View Profile
September 01, 2014, 03:37:43 PM
 #36


If anyone knows Satoshi, getting him/her to come back for a little to see what they think about the block size issue we currently have.

As far as I can tell 3 things stand to eventually destroy Bitcoin and allow another currency to take over.

1. Will transaction fees be enough to secure the network forever? Will miners make enough from TX fee's?
    This is important because everyone gives a different answer, from TX mining will be plenty profitable to Bitcoin will not function properly after 2140.

2. The blocksize issue, This is causing a divide, it would be nice if Satoshi came here and described what he/her thinks would be best.

3. The Satoshi clients needs to have a option to only download the past months worth of blocks, with maybe the network rewarding those who keep full nodes working.



I guess within a few years 99% of users will not even try to download the entire blockchain. Only banks and govts will have a full copy of it. It will be the centralisation of a decentralised, ex anonymous, coin.

It would be a good thing if 99% of users were using thin clients. But it's never going to be just banks and governments running nodes. Lots of enthusiasts run nodes on their computer or they run one on a VPS.
EndlessStory
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 01, 2014, 03:43:40 PM
 #37

Satoshi went away suddenly..more like disappearing. Hope he comes back and handles bitcoins Smiley
sifter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500


CoinBooster Rep


View Profile
September 01, 2014, 06:17:31 PM
 #38

I know nothing about Satoshi. Did anyone actually know him? as in see him day to day? Could have just won the lottery, could have died, in a coma, or 'taken out'. Who knows...

He might still be here just lurking with one of his alt  accounts

CoinBooster.io - Earn up to 67mil satoshi per day. Claim every 5 minutes. NO POP UPS! HIGH ROI
Bitcointalk Official Thread
dankkk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 01, 2014, 06:22:32 PM
 #39

he'll come back  Undecided
jjc326
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 01, 2014, 06:23:34 PM
 #40

Has satoshi ever said why he won't appear and give input as HIS invention gets more and more popular?
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!