Dear Satoshi Nakamoto

[hankyulpark]

The BTC protocol isn't perfect (and I think that wasn't mean to be  ) and doesn't have an answer to all questions that appeared after its release. IMO, we need to think what is the best use for BTC and its blockchain and turn to other cryptocurrencies to deal with this new requirements/features needed.

[Crypt1x]

It's upsetting to see people toss aside full node operators as unessential entities that do not need to be protected from the risks of centralization.

Well, Satoshi was clearly one of those people, as he said that literally himself in 2008.

Any links to sources?

[QuestionAuthority]

Dear Dead Guy,

You made this shit a long time ago before you died and now people are trying to jack it up. Can you do me a solid and come back to life and jack these people up because they're really pissing me off.

Cheers from a Bitcoin Core Supporter.

[AngryDwarf]

Satoshi already commented a bit on the blocksize debate here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

An analysis of the validity of the email was determined here:
https://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

Regardless of people saying that the last communication from him was on the p2p foundation website, it is just as likely that this email was the last communication from him.

It was so effective and likely legitimate that both Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen didn't post anything for a few days after it hit the mailing list.

Segregated Witness came about slowly as a viable solution shortly after this email came out. The advantages that Schnoor signatures would provide also started to be spoken of around this time.

I doubt Satoshi would be fully against raising the limit or creating a method by which it could be algorithimically-increased, but he also clearly understood that political or convenience motivations to do so were the *worst* reasons to increase it. Bitcoin's fungibility is not something that can simply be discarded. In fact, its the lack of fungibility of fiat money that led to cryptocurrencies to begin with. It's upsetting to see people toss aside full node operators as unessential entities that do not need to be protected from the risks of centralization. If we make them easy targets then governments, large businesses, and central bankers will manipulate them into doing their bidding. Not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but later when it becomes easier and more politically-acceptable to do top-down governance of cryptocurrencies.

Indeed, it would appear there are already plenty of alt-coins that take this system of control by default, which is why Bitcoin must continue to remain a coin that does not have this flaw for the people that get exploited or burned on the other blockchains. The decentralization and scarcity of the Bitcoin network is what makes it a powerful and dangerous threat to government-run fiat currencies, forcing those governments to consider what happens when their citizens have an alternative way to store value. It weakens the power of governments and rent-seekers living off government largesse to choose tyrannical options for subjugating both their own citizens and innocent people living in other regions just as much as it stops fraudulent pump and dumpers or ponzi schemers. It is important we preserve this alternative indefinitely for the betterment of society as a whole.

Link above quotes as follows:

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If this is indeed the words of Satoshi Nakamoto:

The advent of pooled mining could indeed be something that Satoshi Nakamoto did not foresee, and certainly concentrates network security into the hands of a few mining cartels.
The post does not indicate what old writings are invalidated by knowledge acquired since his involvement in getting the project off the ground.
Since some may consider that segwit forks bitcoin, redefines what bitcoin is, is under widespread technical criticism, and uses populist tactics to promote it, the conclusion could be that bitcoin is indeed a failed project.
The post does not state what a fork proposal with widespread consensus would look like. The incentive for users to run nodes is the only clue provided. But does he mean all users, or just enough users to counter the political weight of the mining cartels?

And how would you counter the running of multiple nodes by one user if the nodes are incentivised?

[The One]

Dear Satoshi Nakamoto I would like to know your opinion about all the blocksize bitcoin drama.
I believe a brilliant mind as your surely thought of this when developing Bitcoin in the ol' days. I know you couldn't quantify the time needed for this to happen but I'm sure you already thought about this evenience.

I think your genius already considered that question in 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.
...
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.

He's talking about one or few centralized miner nodes, everyone directly connecting to it, and blocks of about 1 GB.
(the 100 GB is daily).

Then, he screwed up:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg17804#msg17804

I agree, especially since generators are both the source of blocks and "votes" in the network.  Since a block restriction would allow generators to charge higher transaction fees, they might "vote" against an increase in the max size in the future.

It seems unlikely to be a real problem though.

Prophetic.... now it's a problem.

[BitcoinMoses]

I am Moses; BitcoinMoses ! Official Spoke Person of Satoshi Nakamoto.

In the middle of a Jungle there was a wise Royal Bengal Tiger; Who thought to go for a holiday in the Kalahari Desert.  His Majesty the Royal Bengal Tiger thought it would be fun to chase a golden giraffe. So he ran after the giraffe and catch and nocked down. He thought the giraffe is too big for me alone to eat for the lunch. So he thought, he would invites few foxes who can not eat well because of the Lions and bloody hyenas.   All of a sudden a group of hyenas came out of no where and hijacked the golden jackpot the giraffe. The greedy hyenas are too many of them but there was one extraordinary clever with 180 degree IQ. So he claimed that he is the  Royal Bengal Tiger. He covered his bloody hyenas face with some banana leaf to hide his own identity. Now all the hyenas thought he is our Royal Japanese Hyena. Now, he took the major share of the golden giraffe and  eating quitely in the shadow of a tree. The rest of the hyenas are fighting each other to get better share of the golden giraffe. Now, few Alien Gremlins landed from the spaceship and saw that there is a golden giraffe and it is been killed and the hyenas are eating. So the aliens now planing to do some thing about it. The hyenas have no knowledge about the Alien Gremlins. The Gremlins has challenged the hyenas. Who knows the Gremlins might eat up the golden giraffe including all the boody hyenas too. Gremlins are hungry ! very very hungry ! The Royal Bengal Tiger has abandoned his holiday and planning to organises a Bitcoin Sumo Festival in Tokyo. You all are welcome to Bitcoin Sumo Festival to see who push out whom ?  Non violence of Gandhi is good  but not always good for the hungry foxes. The Army of Pharaoh of Egypt was very large and strong with armaments, I Moses, drowned them with Abraka Dabra magic of words. As you sow, so shall you reap. Where is Dr. Ross Ulbricht ? I am awarding him a Ph.D. in Dread Pirate ------- --------- for his successful achievement.

Now, As you have earnestly requested Satoshi Nakamoto to reply , So re-read the parable of the Golden Giraffe and try to comprehend the mystery of Bitcoin first, in order to understand the verdict of Satoshi Nakamoto the inventor of bloody Bitcoin.

  

[Viscount]

Isn't it a Satoshi answer, that he invented Bitcoin in such a way that no shit fork like BTU could prevail eva? 

[dinofelis]

I am Moses; BitcoinMoses ! Official Spoke Person of Satoshi Nakamoto.

In the middle of a Jungle there was a wise Royal Bengal Tiger; Who thought to go for a holiday in the Kalahari Desert.  His Majesty the Royal Bengal Tiger thought it would be fun to chase a golden giraffe. So he ran after the giraffe and catch and nocked down. He thought the giraffe is too big for me alone to eat for the lunch. So he thought, he would invites few foxes who can not eat well because of the Lions and bloody hyenas.   All of a sudden a group of hyenas came out of no where and hijacked the golden jackpot the giraffe. The greedy hyenas are too many of them but there was one extraordinary clever with 180 degree IQ. So he claimed that he is the  Royal Bengal Tiger. He covered his bloody hyenas face with some banana leaf to hide his own identity. Now all the hyenas thought he is our Royal Japanese Hyena. Now, he took the major share of the golden giraffe and  eating quitely in the shadow of a tree. The rest of the hyenas are fighting each other to get better share of the golden giraffe. Now, few Alien Gremlins landed from the spaceship and saw that there is a golden giraffe and it is been killed and the hyenas are eating. So the aliens now planing to do some thing about it. The hyenas have no knowledge about the Alien Gremlins. The Gremlins has challenged the hyenas. Who knows the Gremlins might eat up the golden giraffe including all the boody hyenas too. Gremlins are hungry ! very very hungry ! The Royal Bengal Tiger has abandoned his holiday and planning to organises a Bitcoin Sumo Festival in Tokyo. You all are welcome to Bitcoin Sumo Festival to see who push out whom ?  Non violence of Gandhi is good  but not always good for the hungry foxes. The Army of Pharaoh of Egypt was very large and strong with armaments, I Moses, drowned them with Abraka Dabra magic of words. As you sow, so shall you reap. Where is Dr. Ross Ulbricht ? I am awarding him a Ph.D. in Dread Pirate ------- --------- for his successful achievement.

Now, As you have earnestly requested Satoshi Nakamoto to reply , So re-read the parable of the Golden Giraffe and try to comprehend the mystery of Bitcoin first, in order to understand the verdict of Satoshi Nakamoto the inventor of bloody Bitcoin.

  Love it !

[dinofelis]

It's upsetting to see people toss aside full node operators as unessential entities that do not need to be protected from the risks of centralization.

Well, Satoshi was clearly one of those people, as he said that literally himself in 2008.

Any links to sources?

Thought I put them in already.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1876752.msg18654178#msg18654178

Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

[dinofelis]

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If this is indeed the words of Satoshi Nakamoto:

The advent of pooled mining could indeed be something that Satoshi Nakamoto did not foresee, and certainly concentrates network security into the hands of a few mining cartels.
The post does not indicate what old writings are invalidated by knowledge acquired since his involvement in getting the project off the ground.
Since some may consider that segwit forks bitcoin, redefines what bitcoin is, is under widespread technical criticism, and uses populist tactics to promote it, the conclusion could be that bitcoin is indeed a failed project.
The post does not state what a fork proposal with widespread consensus would look like. The incentive for users to run nodes is the only clue provided. But does he mean all users, or just enough users to counter the political weight of the mining cartels?

And how would you counter the running of multiple nodes by one user if the nodes are incentivised?

As Satoshi DID anticipate it (see my quotes in answers above), that new satoshi is suffering from amnesia, or, most probably, isn't the same Satoshi than the one that wrote in 2008.

[AngryDwarf]

Not trying to put any validity behind who was behind the quote, just question its content relevance.

Satoshi it appears did believe full nodes where mining nodes, and these would be run by specialised mining farms. I think there is a quote somewhere where he anticipated (numbers seemingly picked out of a hat) around 10,000 nodes and millions of users.

When block difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks, even with mining nodes having similar hash rate and luck, it's hard to imagine that number of mining nodes.

Pooling to reduce luck variance has made the number of mining nodes even worse, and leaves a small number of distributed blockchain copies compromising its security (if all full nodes are mining nodes).

We might be able to get to a situation where there is 100 to 1000 mining nodes, so other economic nodes are required to keep the distributed blockchain ledger meaningful. However, not every user needs to run a full node, nor should they. An excess of nodes just leads to more Internet traffic and block propagation delays leading to higher orphan rates.

[dinofelis]

Satoshi it appears did believe full nodes where mining nodes, and these would be run by specialised mining farms. I think there is a quote somewhere where he anticipated (numbers seemingly picked out of a hat) around 10,000 nodes and millions of users.

Could you point me to that ?  (honest question, I didn't see that)  I had the impression he only had a FEW nodes in mind.

The pooling seems like entirely predictable as a way to protect against lottery volatility: it is the basis of insurance !  Instead of having a huge gain/cost with low probability, you prefer to have an AVERAGE gain/cost with high probability.  This is the very first element you learn when you look at financial risk management: of two systems with equal expectation of gain, the one with lowest volatility is worth most.

[dinofelis]

We might be able to get to a situation where there is 100 to 1000 mining nodes, so other economic nodes are required to keep the distributed blockchain ledger meaningful.

Well, I don't see the use of that.  I don't see why there wouldn't be naturally a backbone, strong network between miner nodes, and then simply users directly connecting to miner nodes with light wallets, to get the needed pieces of block, and to transmit the transactions.  There's no need for a non-mining P2P network (unless if direct network connections to the miner backbone is unreliable for some or other reason, like the Great Wall of China or so).

[AngryDwarf]

Satoshi it appears did believe full nodes where mining nodes, and these would be run by specialised mining farms. I think there is a quote somewhere where he anticipated (numbers seemingly picked out of a hat) around 10,000 nodes and millions of users.

Could you point me to that ?  (honest question, I didn't see that)  I had the impression he only had a FEW nodes in mind.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

[AngryDwarf]

We might be able to get to a situation where there is 100 to 1000 mining nodes, so other economic nodes are required to keep the distributed blockchain ledger meaningful.

Well, I don't see the use of that.  I don't see why there wouldn't be naturally a backbone, strong network between miner nodes, and then simply users directly connecting to miner nodes with light wallets, to get the needed pieces of block, and to transmit the transactions.  There's no need for a non-mining P2P network (unless if direct network connections to the miner backbone is unreliable for some or other reason, like the Great Wall of China or so).

A small number of mining nodes could easily lead to miner collusion, although it would not be in their economic interests to do so. The problem is that the blockchain would not be distributed enough amongst many jurisdictions. So non-mining nodes have a role to play by keeping the miners honest. How many nodes are required to keep the system honest? Probably only around 1,000 or so, but that is a number picked out of thin air. Many cryptocurrencies run on less, and bitcoin is running securely with around 5,000 nodes (some of which may be pruned or assuming valid blocks which is pointless for security).

[dinofelis]

Satoshi it appears did believe full nodes where mining nodes, and these would be run by specialised mining farms. I think there is a quote somewhere where he anticipated (numbers seemingly picked out of a hat) around 10,000 nodes and millions of users.

Could you point me to that ?  (honest question, I didn't see that)  I had the impression he only had a FEW nodes in mind.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

Ok, I guess "less than 100 000" was a safe bet
5 is also less than 100 000

It is funny, because in a way, Satoshi's "LAN" looks exactly like a pool with its miner/customers connected to it.

Clearly, Satoshi understood that there would be an upper limit to the number of miners ; but you're right that he didn't realize how a global competitive market is usually distributed: there are a few market leaders, not 10 000.  There are not 10 000 "amazons" or "googles".  There are not 10 000 leading car brands in the world.  There are not 10 000 leading airplane manufacturers.
Mining pools are distributed like any other market: there are about 5 visible market leaders (most probably in the hands of one or two guys).

[dinofelis]

So non-mining nodes have a role to play by keeping the miners honest.

How so ?  They can SEE it, but they cannot do anything about it.
If the miners decide to make a given block chain, and not another one, what can the non-mining node do apart from noticing that there's no "good" block chain around and stopping to download it ?

[AngryDwarf]

So non-mining nodes have a role to play by keeping the miners honest.

How so ?  They can SEE it, but they cannot do anything about it.
If the miners decide to make a given block chain, and not another one, what can the non-mining node do apart from noticing that there's no "good" block chain around and stopping to download it ?

If economic nodes stop accepting the miners blocks, then the miners cannot do anything with their coins. (Although since the miners confirm transactions, the economic nodes would grind to a halt. So they have no long term leverage).
To keep the system flowing to maximise the value of bitcoin, miners and economic nodes need to be in agreement. Users can decide whether to use bitcoin or not, but most of them are not educated in economics or technical details, so they really should not have any power beyond their choice of whether to use it or not.

[AngryDwarf]

Ok, I guess "less than 100 000" was a safe bet
5 is also less than 100 000

It is funny, because in a way, Satoshi's "LAN" looks exactly like a pool with its miner/customers connected to it.

Clearly, Satoshi understood that there would be an upper limit to the number of miners ; but you're right that he didn't realize how a global competitive market is usually distributed: there are a few market leaders, not 10 000.  There are not 10 000 "amazons" or "googles".  There are not 10 000 leading car brands in the world.  There are not 10 000 leading airplane manufacturers.
Mining pools are distributed like any other market: there are about 5 visible market leaders (most probably in the hands of one or two guys).

And that's the problem with the system. Users can only get transactions confirmed if the miners decide they want to include them. It fails the permissionless test!

I think you echoed this old statement from ViaBTC in another thread.
https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/838349711870341120

[dinofelis]

So non-mining nodes have a role to play by keeping the miners honest.

How so ?  They can SEE it, but they cannot do anything about it.
If the miners decide to make a given block chain, and not another one, what can the non-mining node do apart from noticing that there's no "good" block chain around and stopping to download it ?

If economic nodes stop accepting the miners blocks, then the miners cannot do anything with their coins.

This is always the same confusion.  You're talking about *economic* nodes.  But there are no economic nodes, there are simply economic USERS.  The fact of them having a node or not, doesn't matter, does it ?   The only thing that a full node can do, is INFORM its owner.  But that's it.

Suppose that you are a whale, holding 100 000 BTC.  You are running a full node, to watch those evil miners.  Now, suppose that those evil miners have decided to increase the block reward (that is, they change the protocol so that the next halving won't happen).  They keep on mining blocks with the old reward, and refuse to apply the halving.  They are not doing this in a sneaky way, they simply announce that they will apply a hard fork so that halving is not going to happen any more, for this and that reason.  95% of the hash rate is behind this move.

Your node sees this, and stops.  The last block it received and accepted, was the last block before the halving.  The next block in the only chain around is considered invalid, because the coinbase transaction is not correct, it isn't halved, as it should be, according to your node.

Now what ?   You decide to sell all of your bitcoin because you're not happy ?  What do you do with your 100 000 BTC ?  Where do you send your transaction ?

You're hoping for the 5% minority miners that wanted to keep the old chain ?  Maybe they do.  But the difficulty is now 20 times too high for them.  They can only mine one block every 3 hours or so, with HALF of the reward that their competitors win on the other fork.

Are they going to keep the "true" chain alive ?  With one block every 3 hours, for the next year or so ?  Or are they going to put their effort in the new bitcoin ?  Suppose they do.  Now, bitcoin has undergone a hard fork with no more halvings.  Your node is not happy about that.  What are you going to do with your 100 000 BTC wallet ?