Any counter-proof that Satoshi Nakamoto did not design a ponzi scheme on purpose

[AnonyMint]

I'm a little disappointed that the link for "as Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated..." was not to any primary source, but rather your inference of his intentions.  I feel that your link to something other than a primary source is a bit misleading, since the thought that went through my head as I clicked was, "wow, he really said that?  I wonder what the context was."

Perhaps "as I clearly show Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated" would be a better title for the link.  It fits what you're trying to say without being misleading.

I don't have time to be a word-smith. People can think a little more slowly and figure it out.

The page I linked to has links somewhere (I can't remember where!) to some of the design decisions or statements by Satoshi.

Satoshi said that he expected mining to become concentrated among a few miners and that it would possibly be free.

Sure sounds to me like he was planning for a govt or fascist-corporation takeover.

You readers go vote and you don't even research all my links. So no wonder you don't see what I see!

You didn't understand why he said that.

Here, you're the latest inspiration for this...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=159349.msg1684347#msg1684347

Are you sure I don't know? (hope you didn't overstep with your hubris)

I think I do understand why he said it would become concentrated.

It is a natural function of fixed-capital capitalism and economies-of-scale and I explained that here:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686

Did you even bother to read that linked document before accusing me of not knowing?

Satoshi even anticipated ASICs. Did you know that Mr. Bravado?

As for Satoshi's assertion that transactions might become free, I don't know why he would say that. Do you know why?

The only reason I can think of is government subsidy.

Why are you referring me to Satoshi's paper, when I've read it already and linked to it numerous times? Are you accusing me of not knowing how Bitcoin works? Please back up your accusation with proof.

The link where Satoshi said mining might be free in future, is from the mailing list where he first announced (the post where he discusses 10GB bandwidth for internet). I have read all of his posts. Have you?

[DataPlumber]

I don't have time to be a word-smith.

<snark off>
If you have ideas that are Important, then the second most important skill you can have (after the skill of having important ideas) is that of being a wordsmith.  Because ideas that aren't communicated well are ideas that die in your head.

Take time to become a wordsmith.  You won't regret it.

[AnonyMint]

I don't have time to be a word-smith.

<snark off>
If you have ideas that are Important, then the second most important skill you can have (after the skill of having important ideas) is that of being a wordsmith.  Because ideas that aren't communicated well are ideas that die in your head.

Take time to become a wordsmith.  You won't regret it.

I'm nerd. Programmer. Not a writer.

[AnonyMint]

I am waiting MoonShadow? Where is your proof to back up your accusation?

Don't get shy now. 

[MoonShadow]

I'm a little disappointed that the link for "as Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated..." was not to any primary source, but rather your inference of his intentions.  I feel that your link to something other than a primary source is a bit misleading, since the thought that went through my head as I clicked was, "wow, he really said that?  I wonder what the context was."

Perhaps "as I clearly show Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated" would be a better title for the link.  It fits what you're trying to say without being misleading.

I don't have time to be a word-smith. People can think a little more slowly and figure it out.

The page I linked to has links somewhere (I can't remember where!) to some of the design decisions or statements by Satoshi.

Satoshi said that he expected mining to become concentrated among a few miners and that it would possibly be free.

Sure sounds to me like he was planning for a govt or fascist-corporation takeover.

You readers go vote and you don't even research all my links. So no wonder you don't see what I see!

You didn't understand why he said that.

Here, you're the latest inspiration for this...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=159349.msg1684347#msg1684347

Are you sure?

I think I do understand why he said it would become concentrated.

It is a natural function of fixed-capital capitalism and economies-of-scale and I explained that here:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686

Did you even bother to read that linked document before accusing me of not knowing?

Of course not.  How could I?  You had not provided such a link in the post I quoted!  Do you really think that you're opinion is so highly valued that we actually read everything you write?  I still won't read it, and I still know you didn't get it, because of this statement...

As for Satoshi's assertion that transactions might become free, I don't know why he would say that. Do you know why?

Yes, I do.  Hell, I was here.

The only reason I can think of is government subsidy.

Not even close, buck.  I've had this conversation so many times, I feel like a third grade teacher ready for retirement.  You really have no idea.  Please, for the love of God, use the search function!

[AnonyMint]

You didn't understand why he said that.

Here, you're the latest inspiration for this...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=159349.msg1684347#msg1684347

Are you sure?

I think I do understand why he said it would become concentrated.

It is a natural function of fixed-capital capitalism and economies-of-scale and I explained that here:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686

Did you even bother to read that linked document before accusing me of not knowing?

Of course not.  How could I?  You had not provided such a link in the post I quoted!  Do you really think that you're opinion is so highly valued that we actually read everything you write?  I still won't read it, and I still know you didn't get it, because of this statement...

I linked it twice before within the past several posts.

So if you are not going to read the thread, then don't falsely accuse.

If you are going be an asshole, then don't be surprised if I am an asshole to you.

As for Satoshi's assertion that transactions might become free, I don't know why he would say that. Do you know why?

Yes, I do.  Hell, I was here.

The only reason I can think of is government subsidy.

Not even close, buck.  I've had this conversation so many times, I feel like a third grade teacher ready for retirement.  You really have no idea.  Please, for the love of God, use the search function!

Give me the terse summary please. Because I suspect you are full of shit, based on the fact that you didn't even read the thread you were replying to as proven above.

Being "here" doesn't impress me. I've seen many logic fails on this site.

You've already demonstrated that you don't always have a high comprehension level.

P.S. Don't try that shit on me. I know how to deal with assholes like you.


Also why are you shifting the discussion from the debasement, which is the major fucking problem for funding mining for transactions going forward?

[AnonyMint]

Satoshi said mining would become centralized:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

Here he said there would probably always be nodes willing to process for free after debasement ends. He did not elaborate on why:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10142.html

Another reason to centralize mining is the communication overhead, which I implied in my prior post where I said Satoshi was discussing the 100GB bandwidth.

[MoonShadow]

Not even close, buck.  I've had this conversation so many times, I feel like a third grade teacher ready for retirement.  You really have no idea.  Please, for the love of God, use the search function!

Give me the terse summary please. Because I suspect you are full of shit, based on the fact that you didn't even read the thread you were replying to as proven above.

Satoshi believed that there would be few professional mining outfits, and that most users would not often have to pay a transaction fee, because in a future that bitcoin had adoptence and success near the level of a minor national currency, most businesses would be accepting them.  For major retailers such as Wal-Mart or Target, accepting bitcoins via free transactions would be a comparative advantage they could wield over smaller competitors because these major retailers could afford to either build their own mining farm or sponsor a professional mining outfit by contract, so that their free transactions could be favored by those same contract miners in the same way that fee paying transactions can be expected to be favored over free transactions now.  The same kind of arrangement could occur between bitcoin "banks", who agree to transact off-network between their members whenever feasible and to mutually favor each other's userbase regarding free transactions within their own transaction/mining pools.  Thus, the market for transaction fees was expected, from very early on, to compete with partial trust parallel payment networks built up specificly to avoid direct blockchain transaction fees.

Therefore, few professional miners as mining without sponsors or some other off-network method of income would eventually become difficult; and mostly free transactions (to consumers) because the primary burden of paying for the network would shift to the corporations that desire to get you to spend in their stores.

And, yes, that is the short version.

Being "here" doesn't impress me. I've seen many logic fails on this site.

You've already demonstrated that you don't always have a high comprehension level.

P.S. Don't try that shit on me. I know how to deal with assholes like you.

Oh, I doubt that.  There are not many assholes quite like me.  I havn't even put any effort into this one.

Also why are you shifting the discussion from the debasement, which is the major fucking problem for funding mining for transactions going forward?

Because it's not a problem, and you don't see why.  Start with the above summary, but there is much more to it.

[AnonyMint]

Another reason to centralize mining is the communication overhead, which I implied in my prior post where I said Satoshi was discussing the 100GB bandwidth.

He is not using the bandwidth as the reason the mining will become centralized. He says it will become centralized any way. That is why I say the reason is the economics of fixed-capital investment.

If you have 1 million transactions per day with 1KB each, that is only 1GB per day bandwidth for each peer. With a 10Mbps connection, that is only 15 - 20 minutes per day. And bandwidth is increasing.

[AnonyMint]

It amazes me that you couldn't see that what I was expecting from Satoshi is exactly what you have written below.

Not even close, buck.  I've had this conversation so many times, I feel like a third grade teacher ready for retirement.  You really have no idea.  Please, for the love of God, use the search function!

Give me the terse summary please. Because I suspect you are full of shit, based on the fact that you didn't even read the thread you were replying to as proven above.

Satoshi believed that there would be few professional mining outfits, and that most users would not often have to pay a transaction fee, because in a future that bitcoin had adoptence and success near the level of a minor national currency, most businesses would be accepting them.  For major retailers such as Wal-Mart or Target, accepting bitcoins via free transactions would be a comparative advantage they could wield over smaller competitors because these major retailers could afford to either build their own mining farm or sponsor a professional mining outfit by contract, so that their free transactions could be favored by those same contract miners in the same way that fee paying transactions can be expected to be favored over free transactions now.  The same kind of arrangement could occur between bitcoin "banks", who agree to transact off-network between their members whenever feasible and to mutually favor each other's userbase regarding free transactions within their own transaction/mining pools.  Thus, the market for transaction fees was expected, from very early on, to compete with partial trust parallel payment networks built up specificly to avoid direct blockchain transaction fees.

Therefore, few professional miners as mining without sponsors or some other off-network method of income would eventually become difficult; and mostly free transactions (to consumers) because the primary burden of paying for the network would shift to the corporations that desire to get you to spend in their stores.

And, yes, that is the short version.

Thank you very much! So you just proved my point that he was expecting the fascist-corporatism model for our future!

Where did he actually write that? I just deduced in my own mind that he was expecting a govt+corporate takeover of society. Or is that some interpretation you all sorted out independent of him saying it?

Also why are you shifting the discussion from the debasement, which is the major fucking problem for funding mining for transactions going forward?

Because it's not a problem, and you don't see why.  Start with the above summary, but there is much more to it.

That is exactly the problem.

You are not building freedom. You are building slavery.

[DataPlumber]

Satoshi said mining would become centralized:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

The mining pools we use today exactly fit this description, yet I don't feel threatened.

Here he said there would probably always be nodes willing to process for free after debasement ends. He did not elaborate on why:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10142.html

Another reason to centralize mining is the communication overhead, which I implied in my prior post where I said Satoshi was discussing the 100GB bandwidth.

He did not elaborate on why, but I will probably be one of those miners.  Can you elaborate on why?  Hint: we may have different value systems.

Until recently, much of the mining I did was at a loss.  ...Well, ex-post-facto, it wasn't at a loss.  But I had no reasonable expectation it wouldn't be at a loss.  I just think Bitcoin is really ridiculously cool from its premise to its implementation.  What I like to call a "Fonzie scheme."

But I'm sure we can both agree that the recent growth in Bitcoin FX value defies "reasonable" as a description.

[AnonyMint]

So now thanks to our gracious global moderator MoonShadow, we see the true model for Bitcoin.

This is a model where debasement ends, and the large corporations control our lives.

You've just proven which answer is correct to my question. And it wasn't my answer.

Thanks for the slamdunk! Wow you couldn't have made it any easier for me.     

[MoonShadow]

It amazes me that you couldn't see that what I was expecting from Satoshi is exactly what you have written below.

Not even close, buck.  I've had this conversation so many times, I feel like a third grade teacher ready for retirement.  You really have no idea.  Please, for the love of God, use the search function!

Give me the terse summary please. Because I suspect you are full of shit, based on the fact that you didn't even read the thread you were replying to as proven above.

Satoshi believed that there would be few professional mining outfits, and that most users would not often have to pay a transaction fee, because in a future that bitcoin had adoptence and success near the level of a minor national currency, most businesses would be accepting them.  For major retailers such as Wal-Mart or Target, accepting bitcoins via free transactions would be a comparative advantage they could wield over smaller competitors because these major retailers could afford to either build their own mining farm or sponsor a professional mining outfit by contract, so that their free transactions could be favored by those same contract miners in the same way that fee paying transactions can be expected to be favored over free transactions now.  The same kind of arrangement could occur between bitcoin "banks", who agree to transact off-network between their members whenever feasible and to mutually favor each other's userbase regarding free transactions within their own transaction/mining pools.  Thus, the market for transaction fees was expected, from very early on, to compete with partial trust parallel payment networks built up specificly to avoid direct blockchain transaction fees.

Therefore, few professional miners as mining without sponsors or some other off-network method of income would eventually become difficult; and mostly free transactions (to consumers) because the primary burden of paying for the network would shift to the corporations that desire to get you to spend in their stores.

And, yes, that is the short version.

Thank you very much! So you just proved my point that he was expecting the fascist-corporatism model for our future!

Where did he actually write that? I just deduced in my own mind that he was expecting a govt+corporate takeover of society. Or is that some interpretation you all sorted out independent of him saying it?

Being "here" doesn't impress me. I've seen many logic fails on this site.

You've already demonstrated that you don't always have a high comprehension level.

P.S. Don't try that shit on me. I know how to deal with assholes like you.

Oh, I doubt that.  There are not many assholes quite like me.  I havn't even put any effort into this one.

Also why are you shifting the discussion from the debasement, which is the major fucking problem for funding mining for transactions going forward?

Because it's not a problem, and you don't see why.  Start with the above summary, but there is much more to it.

That is exactly the problem.

You are not building freedom. You are building slavery.

Nonsense.  The innovation of Bitcoin isn't it's decentralized nature.  Paper cash is moreso.  The innovation is that the transaction settlement system is automated, unstoppable and cannot prevent new players from entering into the network.  Anyone can offer mining services, even when Walmart has a mining cluster, if they are willing to mine at a loss.  Many are and can.  I do, as I have a GPU based mining rig I bought used last fall that is offsetting a portion of my heating demands for my detached garage.  I'd be using that electricity anyway, but I can't make a business model out of waste heat from a mining rig.  Even if Walmart and Target are fighting over half of the network, they can't stop me from participating at whatever level I desire.  Central banking is about control, not centralizatin per se.  If you really view it as a problem, don't use it.  No one is asking you to, much less compelling you to.  Just go back to your legal tender and go pay your taxes like a good little socialist/capitalist/Morman/whatever.  That's real slavery, and you don't even realize you're already part of your own solution.

[DataPlumber]

In particular:

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think.  A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.  Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.  
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

ONLY the pool operators or solo ("professional") miners have to support that level of bandwidth.  Individual miners simply work on the block headers, which involve minimal bandwidth.

If any pool gets too big, people will naturally migrate to the underdog pools:
(A) because they're aware of the problems inherent with any pool getting too large, and
(B) because shucks, everyone loves an underdog!

I predict (without any facts to back me other than our experience BTD [Bitcoin-to-date]) that no solo entity will be able to compete with the larger pools.

[AnonyMint]

It amazes me that you couldn't see that what I was expecting from Satoshi is exactly what you have written below.

Because it's not a problem, and you don't see why.  Start with the above summary, but there is much more to it.

That is exactly the problem.

You are not building freedom. You are building slavery.

Nonsense.  The innovation of Bitcoin isn't it's decentralized nature.  Paper cash is moreso.  The innovation is that the transaction settlement system is automated, unstoppable and cannot prevent new players from entering into the network.  Anyone can offer mining services, even when Walmart has a mining cluster, if they are willing to mine at a loss.  Many are and can.  I do, as I have a GPU based mining rig I bought used last fall that is offsetting a portion of my heating demands for my detached garage.  I'd be using that electricity anyway, but I can't make a business model out of waste heat from a mining rig.  Even if Walmart and Target are fighting over half of the network, they can't stop me from participating at whatever level I desire.  Central banking is about control, not centralizatin per se.  If you really view it as a problem, don't use it.  No one is asking you to, much less compelling you to.  Just go back to your legal tender and go pay your taxes like a good little socialist/capitalist/Morman/whatever.  That's real slavery, and you don't even realize you're already part of your own solution.

Mining at a loss is a barrier to entry.

When the corporate-fascists spend $10 billion on ASICs, you will never be relevant again. They will control everything.

Then they can take over the protocol, through their cartels.

Are you blind to history fool?

This has Rockfeller's fingerprints all over it.

Don't you understand fool, that the corporations are the same monopolists who own the banks and government?

Don't you understand that you are helping them build the 666 system?

Dentralization of the debasement is absolutely essential. Without that, you go directly to 666 within 10 - 20 years.

[DataPlumber]

It amazes me that you couldn't see that what I was expecting from Satoshi is exactly what you have written below.

Because it's not a problem, and you don't see why.  Start with the above summary, but there is much more to it.

That is exactly the problem.

You are not building freedom. You are building slavery.

Nonsense.  The innovation of Bitcoin isn't it's decentralized nature.  Paper cash is moreso.  The innovation is that the transaction settlement system is automated, unstoppable and cannot prevent new players from entering into the network.  Anyone can offer mining services, even when Walmart has a mining cluster, if they are willing to mine at a loss.  Many are and can.  I do, as I have a GPU based mining rig I bought used last fall that is offsetting a portion of my heating demands for my detached garage.  I'd be using that electricity anyway, but I can't make a business model out of waste heat from a mining rig.  Even if Walmart and Target are fighting over half of the network, they can't stop me from participating at whatever level I desire.  Central banking is about control, not centralizatin per se.  If you really view it as a problem, don't use it.  No one is asking you to, much less compelling you to.  Just go back to your legal tender and go pay your taxes like a good little socialist/capitalist/Morman/whatever.  That's real slavery, and you don't even realize you're already part of your own solution.

Mining at a loss is a barrier to entry.

When the corporate-fascists spend $10 billion on ASICs, you will never be relevant again. They will control everything.

Then they can take over the protocol, through their cartels.

Are you blind to history fool?

This has Rockfeller's fingerprints all over it.

Don't you understand fool, that the corporations are the same monopolists who own the banks and government?

Don't you understand that you are helping them build the 666 system?

Dentralization of the debasement is absolutely essential. Without that, you go directly to 666 within 10 - 20 years.

You use the word "fool" a lot.  Remember that MoonShadow is relatively new to this thread and perhaps hasn't earned the scorn that the rest of us have

[AnonyMint]

In a decade or three, you will be wishing you were only fool.

Have you guys not studied the history of fascism?

Do you not understand what is going on now in shift in the world with the sovereign debt crisis and how the big banks are doing a reverse takeover of our governance?

Where do you think the mega-corporations get their loans for expansion?

And when the global economy goes into stall velocity circa 2017, these mega-corporations are going to be owned by the banks, because the sales will collapse.

Haven't you seen the many mergers and mega-corporations under mega-mega-umbrella groups?

[DataPlumber]

In a decade or three, you will be wishing you were only fool.

Have you guys not studied the history of fascism?

Do you not understand what is going on now in shift in the world with the sovereign debt crisis and how the big banks are doing a reverse takeover of our governance?

I'm sorry, are you arguing that we should be for, or against Bitcoin, here?

[AnonyMint]

Do you not understand that if you give the mega-corporations control over Bitcoin transaction block mining, you've given them the control over everything in your life?

They will run your life as a digital slave.

[Timo Y]

The long-term and short-term expectations polls, both show extreme ponzi valuations. And interestingly bitcoiners aren't as interested in the short-term 2017 time-frame. Their expectations skew is Bitcoin will overtake the world long-term. Speculative investments shouldn't be valued extremely long-term— too many variables change. Any seasoned investor knows this.

What you have here, is Satoshi cleverly hoodwinked goldbugs (knowing their psychological weakness) think that Bitcoin  has the properties of gold (but it does not!), and so these naive investors pile in long-term thinking it changes the world. This has NSA finger prints all over it.

Besides gold has never been a superior currency nor investment over long-term. Go dig into my links, I have all the historical data to proof of that claim.

REALITY CHECK!

History doesn't matter.

Gold could crash any day just like Bitcoin.