Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[danda]

There is another Satoshi quote, already in this thread a while back, that demonstrates Satoshi made  bitcoin resistant to change by design.   That, combined with the facts that he snuck this 1M change into a release without telling anyone and that he left without providing any sort of warning about it or, upgrade advice, to me is counterevidence that he at least had a pretty good idea it would stick around, or should have.

edit: here is the satoshi quote. context is talking about the rationale for the script language.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.

That combined with the fact that people immediately jumped in and stated it was dangerous and could be hard to change in the future... well, it's hard to argue he was somehow clueless and unaware.

But really that's all just a curiosity, satoshi's motivations.  argument by authority and all that.  plus today, it is what it is.

I think it does mean that you should stop claiming Satoshi actually created what you/Nash are looking for on purpose.  It looks more like it was created as a happy coincidence due to a temporary bug fix.

[1714835649]

1714835649

[1714835649]

1714835649

[1714835649]

1714835649

[1714835649]

1714835649

[jbreher]

No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?

What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described?  That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate?

Give me ONE example.

OK... just for the sake of argument... Litecoin.

For all essential aspects, Litecoin is a virtual clone of Bitcoin. The only thing differentiating Bitcoin from Litecoin, as viewed as the "other alternative" is the relative 100:1 ratio of market cap.

Granted, that is a significant difference from the aspect of the "other alternative". However, even Bitcoin is still a sideshow on the world stage. What if adoption in the coming years is driven to Litecoin rather than Bitcoin? Then Litecoin would end up the economic juggernaut, and Bitcoin would be relegated to junior status.

What might lead to mass adoption of Litecoin over Bitcoin? If Litecoin were to have increased utility to its user base, that is something that might lead to this eventuality. If something increases in value, it is a more compelling investment to the individual that some other thing which does not. And individuals are the decision-makers who allocate their resources to products and services.

What might lead Litecoin to have increased value with respect to Bitcoin to each individual stakeholder? I might posit that Litecoin adopting higher tps capability while Bitcoin does not might be such an eventuality.

So if such were to come about, and Bitcoin's market dominance be shunted to the side by Litecoin, why would Bitcoin's properties matter in terms of being the "other alternative"?

[traincarswreck]

No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?

What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described?  That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate?

Give me ONE example.

OK... just for the sake of argument... Litecoin.

For all essential aspects, Litecoin is a virtual clone of Bitcoin. The only thing differentiating Bitcoin from Litecoin, as viewed as the "other alternative" is the relative 100:1 ratio of market cap.

Granted, that is a significant difference from the aspect of the "other alternative". However, even Bitcoin is still a sideshow on the world stage. What if adoption in the coming years is driven to Litecoin rather than Bitcoin? Then Litecoin would end up the economic juggernaut, and Bitcoin would be relegated to junior status.

What might lead to mass adoption of Litecoin over Bitcoin? If Litecoin were to have increased utility to its user base, that is something that might lead to this eventuality. If something increases in value, it is a more compelling investment to the individual that some other thing which does not. And individuals are the decision-makers who allocate their resources to products and services.

What might lead Litecoin to have increased value with respect to Bitcoin to each individual stakeholder? I might posit that Litecoin adopting higher tps capability while Bitcoin does not might be such an eventuality.

So if such were to come about, and Bitcoin's market dominance be shunted to the side by Litecoin, why would Bitcoin's properties matter in terms of being the "other alternative"?

Just to be clear, you think nash was talking about lite coin?

…the possible area for evolution is that if, say, an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% is now considered desirable and appropriate in Sweden, then, if it is really controllable, why shouldn’t a rate between 1/2 % and 3/2 % be even more desirable?

[AgentofCoin]

There is another Satoshi quote, already in this thread a while back, that demonstrates Satoshi made  bitcoin resistant to change by design.   That, combined with the facts that he snuck this 1M change into a release without telling anyone and that he left without providing any sort of warning about it or, upgrade advice, to me is counterevidence that he at least had a pretty good idea it would stick around, or should have.

edit: here is the satoshi quote. context is talking about the rationale for the script language.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.

That combined with the fact that people immediately jumped in and stated it was dangerous and could be hard to change in the future... well, it's hard to argue he was somehow clueless and unaware.
...

This is historically and factually incorrect.
When Satoshi created v0.1 the "blocksize" had a 32MB Cap, as DESIGNED.
So, if you are going to argue that Satoshi designed it as intended at version 0.1, then
you must admit that he intended to "deadlock" or "capture" the consensus at 32 MBs,
theoretically speaking.

You don't understand the history or the timeline of events that took place. The 1MB Cap
was implemented in v0.3. Over 19 months after v0.1.

In addition, in the whitepaper, Satoshi stated, Para 12, last line:

"Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." Emphasis Mine.

Translation: Consensus mechanism that Satoshi outlined is the mechanism that by which
the node network will signal acceptance for a change to the protocol and after the change,
enforce it.
Elaboration: If Satoshi envisioned protocol changes (ex. NEEDED rules (future tense)) he
would not have stated "set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" in the manner in which you
are implying. You are reinterpreting his words to fit a false premise.


I would advise you to do more research prior to attempting to salvage OP's failed premise
that Satoshi and/or Hal, with foreknowledge created Bitcoin to transfigure into a device to
facilitate "Ideal Money". If it becomes so, it was purely by accident.

[jbreher]

No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?

What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described?  That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate?

Give me ONE example.

OK... just for the sake of argument... Litecoin.

For all essential aspects, Litecoin is a virtual clone of Bitcoin. The only thing differentiating Bitcoin from Litecoin, as viewed as the "other alternative" is the relative 100:1 ratio of market cap.

Granted, that is a significant difference from the aspect of the "other alternative". However, even Bitcoin is still a sideshow on the world stage. What if adoption in the coming years is driven to Litecoin rather than Bitcoin? Then Litecoin would end up the economic juggernaut, and Bitcoin would be relegated to junior status.

What might lead to mass adoption of Litecoin over Bitcoin? If Litecoin were to have increased utility to its user base, that is something that might lead to this eventuality. If something increases in value, it is a more compelling investment to the individual that some other thing which does not. And individuals are the decision-makers who allocate their resources to products and services.

What might lead Litecoin to have increased value with respect to Bitcoin to each individual stakeholder? I might posit that Litecoin adopting higher tps capability while Bitcoin does not might be such an eventuality.

So if such were to come about, and Bitcoin's market dominance be shunted to the side by Litecoin, why would Bitcoin's properties matter in terms of being the "other alternative"?

Just to be clear, you think nash was talking about lite coin?

No. Just to be clear, you think Nash is the person who devised, coded, and released to the world Bitcoin?

And even if so, might the above scenario belie a flaw in his masterstroke?

[CryptoDatabase]

Theymos, what kind of a world do we live in if I have to explain what Nash's already explained? Why won't anyone read it?  I mean I know but, I'm pretty sure he did a perfect job of explaining.  What is the culture of refusing to read the source documents?

To answer your question bud and be frank, it's because nobody really cares except a few. The majority of Bitcoin users go with the flow of what everyone else is doing and those who lead that flow do what is in their own best interest.

Welcome to the financial world bud, money is the only desire here.

[danda]

Your post makes me chuckle.  I'm well aware of the context in which he made his statements. I've read every single post satoshi ever made on this forum.

nowhere did I state that the 1M cap was in place in v0.1.   You misinterpreted.

I don't even care to comment on the rest.

All I'm saying is that if Satoshi was somehow unaware of the ramifications of that change when he made it, then he was a fool.   I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.

You don' t have to believe that way.  I'm only stating my opinion.   deal with it.

I would advise you to do more research prior to attempting to salvage OP's failed premise
that Satoshi and/or Hal, with foreknowledge created Bitcoin to transfigure into a device to
facilitate "Ideal Money". If it becomes so, it was purely by accident.

[traincarswreck]

No. Just to be clear, you think Nash is the person who devised, coded, and released to the world Bitcoin?

And even if so, might the above scenario belie a flaw in his masterstroke?

no. but it think nash's ideal money is based on bitcoin as a premise.  and i think no one believes nash was that smart.

[jonald_fyookball]

  I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
 

Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?  

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.

[AgentofCoin]

Your post makes me chuckle.  I'm well aware of the context in which he made his statements. I've read every single post satoshi ever made on this forum.

nowhere did I state that the 1M cap was in place in v0.1.   You misinterpreted.

I don't even care to comment on the rest.

All I'm saying is that if Satoshi was somehow unaware of the ramifications of that change when he made it, then he was a fool.   I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
...

You just stated that Satoshi created a Consensus mechanism that he understood was flawed.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.

So can you explain what you find interesting about Bitcoin then (beside in the context of this thread)?
Seems pretty contradictory and amazing you would continue participation with such a belief.
You essential stated that Bitcoin's blockchain theory failed the day it was released.

[danda]

I didn't state that.  you are the only person to use those words, right here.  wow.

You just stated that Satoshi created a Consensus mechanism that he understood was flawed.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.

[danda]

that's a good question, and something I've wondered about.

It could be that he was naive and actually believed such a change could be effected later, before the community grew too large.

or it could be that it was just hand waving to pacify the critics.  And he didn't actually intend to make such a change.

It doesn't really matter now.

What is actually most curious to me at the moment is why some of you get so bent out of shape about me expressing my opinion on this.  

oh, and btw, my opinion on the topic has nothing to do with OP or this thread, contrary to an earlier assertion by, I think agent.

  I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
 

Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?  

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.

[AgentofCoin]

I didn't state that.  you are the only person to use those words, right here.  wow.

You just stated that Satoshi created a Consensus mechanism that he understood was flawed.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.

No that is what you said.
Unless you talk without understanding what your opinion actually means.

[danda]

Agent, fyi you are on my ignore list now, so save your breath.

[AgentofCoin]

Agent, fyi you are on my ignore list now, so save your breath.

Yes, show this forum your insecurities and how you deal with conflict.
Bitcoiners like you are of the most malicious, because you plug your ears and talk to mirrors.

[traincarswreck]

Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?  
 

it can it i can....

nothing at all like "we must..."  "we will".

[AGD]

Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?  
 

it can it i can....

nothing at all like "we must..."  "we will".

So you assume, that Satoshi said "We can change to bigger blocks later with a consensus if nescessary", but in reality he thought "We can NOT change to bigger blocks later, because I know it will be impossible to achieve a consensus about blocksize, but I won't tell anybody"?

[traincarswreck]

So you assume, that Satoshi said "We can change to bigger blocks later with a consensus if nescessary", but in reality he thought "We can NOT change to bigger blocks later, because I know it will be impossible to achieve a consensus about blocksize, but I won't tell anybody"?

ya you can change the constitutional framework too.  You just all have to agree.

[jbreher]

it think nash's ideal money is based on bitcoin as a premise.

So:
a) based on bitcoin as a premise; or
b) based on something that bitcoin seems to resemble pretty closely as a premise?

[traincarswreck]

So:
a) based on bitcoin as a premise; or
b) based on something that bitcoin seems to resemble pretty closely as a premise?

international e-currency with a stable supply with an inflation rate of halving periodically. 

Aug. 30, 1999 Initiation of this directory, “Goldbach_Programs”. This is just for some recreational mathematics stuff that may be of occasional interest. I recently read the novel “Uncle Petros and the Goldbach Conjecture”. In the story Petros, but at a time many years in the past, wonders about whether or not, in particular, the number 2¹⁰⁰ satisfies GB (so that it is a sum of 2 primes). Nowadays it is possible to compute answers to questions of this sort for numbers of that size fairly easily. As I read the novel and thought about that specific question I remembered that quite a few years ago, just while doing recreational work/play with numbers, I had developed a moderately efficient program to search for the next prime larger than a given odd number. And I realized that this program, which I had on file as a MATHEMATICA program, could be applied to the problem challenge of checking out 2¹⁰⁰ in relation to the Goldbach Conjecture.

Litcoin?

I don't necessarily think he knew of bitcoin.  I think he knew only a deflationary untouchable medium would survive and be his premise.