What is "Satoshi's vision"? which camp is right?

[9op]

I see a lot of comments from both sides of the scaling debate, both very strongly believing that their side (be it core, or big blockers), is the true representation of "Satoshi's vision, as obviously expressed in his whitepaper."

Who is right? What is "satoshi's vision", really? Are people twisting words too much or adding their own unfounded opinions?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

[1713966717]

1713966717

[DannyHamilton]

I see a lot of comments from both sides of the scaling debate, both very strongly believing that their side (be it core, or big blockers), is the true representation of "Satoshi's vision, as obviously expressed in his whitepaper."

Who is right? What is "satoshi's vision", really? Are people twisting words too much or adding their own unfounded opinions?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Satoshi's vision doesn't really matter.  He's not here, and we need to create a system that will actually scale and work in the real world while dealing with actual issues such as bandwidth, storage, decentralization, and consensus.

In Satoshi's vision, he claimed that he'd just make decisions on his own and everyone would do whatever he decided.  In the real world that wouldn't be true even if he was still here, and it certainly isn't true now that he's gone.

Here's a quote from Satoshi demonstrating his belief that he could just arbitrarily change the block size in the future and people would simply accept it:

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.

[amaclin1]

we need to create a system that will actually scale and work in the real world while dealing with actual issues such as bandwidth, storage, decentralization, and consensus.

impossible.
but a lot of people continue wasting their time implemening perpetuum mobile in economics  

[cellard]

I see a lot of comments from both sides of the scaling debate, both very strongly believing that their side (be it core, or big blockers), is the true representation of "Satoshi's vision, as obviously expressed in his whitepaper."

Who is right? What is "satoshi's vision", really? Are people twisting words too much or adding their own unfounded opinions?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Satoshi's vision doesn't really matter.  He's not here, and we need to create a system that will actually scale and work in the real world while dealing with actual issues such as bandwidth, storage, decentralization, and consensus.

In Satoshi's vision, he claimed that he'd just make decisions on his own and everyone would do whatever he decided.  In the real world that wouldn't be true even if he was still here, and it certainly isn't true now that he's gone.

Here's a quote from Satoshi demonstrating his belief that he could just arbitrarily change the block size in the future and people would simply accept it:

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.

Yup, satoshi was delusional if he thought his project would be taken in a serious fashion if we needed to follow the "vision" of some random guy like a cult. The thing is, his so called vision was flawed, you can find many stuff that contradicts itself, and you can find stuff that in 2017 is no longer relevant or doesn't apply.

Bitcoin without him is much better. He was way too much of a polarizing figure. Maybe he realized this himself and that is why he disappeared, assuming he wasn't scared off due Gavin's picnic at the CIA.

[btcton]

I see a lot of comments from both sides of the scaling debate, both very strongly believing that their side (be it core, or big blockers), is the true representation of "Satoshi's vision, as obviously expressed in his whitepaper."

Who is right? What is "satoshi's vision", really? Are people twisting words too much or adding their own unfounded opinions?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

It doesn't matter. Whether his vision said a certain thing or if somebody claims that he actually meant something else is completely irrelevant to the future of Bitcoin and is not to affect how it is developed. While Satoshi did come up with a great system to build off, we do not have to follow it. For all we know, even his thoughts on Bitcoin could have changed, but we have no way of knowing that since he simply disappeared. Therefore, what we might think his vision was could be completely different from what he now thinks, and since we can't know the truth, it does not make sense to follow his old vision about Bitcoin development. Even if he did come back and told us what it truly is, why would we follow it if we believed Bitcoin could be better off any other way? There really is no purpose in trying to answer this question or in deciding what Satoshi's vision truly is, since it doesn't actually matter.

[isoneguy]

"Satoshi's Vision" = money 2.0

It's supposed to be an improvement to fiat in all ways.

A living idea that should grow towards maximum efficiency.

All things should be possible.

Isn't there voting and such implemented? That alone suggests an initial desire for improvement.

The block-chains should be able to communicate with each other.

The miners should get paid for their efforts.

The traders should be able to buy/sell as needed.

People that invest should get returns on their investments.

It's that simple really.

[Kakmakr]

Satoshi was never really confronted by opposing views and different opinions when he was still around. People accepted his "vision" because he or she or they, were the creator of this experiment. Most people welcome the fact that Satoshi left the scene to make way for new ideas and innovation, without the restraint of centralized decision making.

This experiment evolved into something new and consensus replaced centralized authority. People should acknowledge this and just move with the changing tide. We will never scale enough or fast enough with Block size increases, if we have to wait for consensus. ^hmmmmmm^

[SoulSlayerPT]

I think both camps have their merits and Satoshi might have been on the fence. He probably would have welcomed the fork.

[monsterer2]

Neither is right. Bitcoin needs major changes to scale long term.

[isoneguy]

Satoshi was never really confronted by opposing views and different opinions when he was still around. People accepted his "vision" because he or she or they, were the creator of this experiment. Most people welcome the fact that Satoshi left the scene to make way for new ideas and innovation, without the restraint of centralized decision making.

Satoshi never left the scene, he's just playing a different part now.

[jjshabadoo]

I dont really think that Satoshi exists, i think that he is just a character that makes us believe that he is the person who really created all this system, and we need someone to believe in. The really creator of the bitcoin is probably holding large amounts of bitcoins, but he probably can sell them, because they will be worth millions and millions, and that could take the attention of all money entities on the world.

[cpfreeplz]

It's naive to think that Satoshi's vision should be carried out. Where did he say that once the blockchain is up and running there should never be improvments made? Also, if he is still out there why not just create an altcoin with the original bitcoin's code and continue on with that..? Oh because it's been improved in many ways over the years. If you aren't moving forward in this industry you'll die off VERY quickly.

[dothebeats]

Why would Satoshi's vision matter when he's not even around the scene? As long as improvements are needed for bitcoin to scale, then developments should take place. If efficiency and usability is on the line, legacy shouldn't be the basis of where will we go from there but instead what would be the best possible action we could take as a community.

[25hashcoin]

The Bitcoin Cash (big block) camp is right. The others are deceivers or have been lied to themselves and don't know it.

[P_Shep]

Satoshi died for our sins.

[Fundamentals Of]

Satoshi's vision is not very detailed in case some new problems arise every now and then, here and there. Circumstances always come out along with time. Satoshi didn't lay out everything that we should do in the next decade or so. So, we need to do some steps in order for Bitcoin to remain working.

[gentlemand]

It's not exactly clear cut, but I'd say the central thread running through all of it is decentralisation and the removal of third parties to give individuals control. Everything else is just tinsel.

This makes it even muddier as you can throw the same accusation at all camps depending on how you want to frame it. Bitmain and their big blocking friends will centralise nodes and they've already centralised mining. If BCH 'wins' then they also control development. The blockstreamborgcore types have taken control of development and are pushing things that also have the potential for centralisation on the second layer.

All of this is why this issue will never go away. Everyone feels they're right.

[hv_]

I see a lot of comments from both sides of the scaling debate, both very strongly believing that their side (be it core, or big blockers), is the true representation of "Satoshi's vision, as obviously expressed in his whitepaper."

Who is right? What is "satoshi's vision", really? Are people twisting words too much or adding their own unfounded opinions?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Satoshi's vision doesn't really matter.  He's not here, and we need to create a system that will actually scale and work in the real world while dealing with actual issues such as bandwidth, storage, decentralization, and consensus.

In Satoshi's vision, he claimed that he'd just make decisions on his own and everyone would do whatever he decided.  In the real world that wouldn't be true even if he was still here, and it certainly isn't true now that he's gone.

Here's a quote from Satoshi demonstrating his belief that he could just arbitrarily change the block size in the future and people would simply accept it:

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.

Yeah, just put it on the 'no-brainer' list. Not worth to discuss in any detail, but aware it need a hard fork.

Sigh

[FlightyPouch]

The Bitcoin Cash (big block) camp is right. The others are deceivers or have been lied to themselves and don't know it.

I think it depends on how we will look at this.

Bitcoin Cash is based on Satoshi Nakamoto's vision, we can say that it is the original vision and also, we can say that it is the right thing if we are looking at the bitcoin in the side of the creator. If we are looking at the side of the commoners, the right thing is the Bitcoin Segwit because it is the Bitcoin we are using until now.

[nexus99]

I think Satoshi would not have been against solving the scalability problem. He would have wanted his brainchild to develop, not stagnate