Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit?

[hv_]

answer is simple. unnecessary   MAX-  block size is unnecessary

As a protocol / consensus relevant param :  YESS!!!

[1714793020]

1714793020

[1714793020]

1714793020

[Anti-Cen]

As a protocol / consensus relevant param :  YESS!!!

Maybe we could try this

public static money MaxFees=1.50 // 20,000 miners is 19,000 too many

Far to many miners doing CPU-Wars with each other and if we had 1000 then $1.50 would be enough to keep
Bitcoin running and this proposal has the "consensus" of the community using Bitcoin but not the ears of the developers
because the miners and bankers have them.

We could even get complicated as a short term fix and add

if (Mempool>10000 && Amount<$10) Return Error.AmountToLow

Seven transactions a second and 20,000 full nodes ! We are being take for twats


 

[Ucy]

Simple answer:

Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.

Proof that NSA or CIA never created Bitcoin. They probabaly created Paypal or want Palpal like digital currencies?

[mindrust]

Last time i checked there were a few 2mb blocks got mined.

Where the fuck that 1mb is coming from?

If you want to pay less fees, use segwit. It has big blocks.

[junoreactor]

Simple answer:

Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.

Proof that NSA or CIA never created Bitcoin. They probabaly created Paypal or want Palpal like digital currencies?

It's several times I read the same answer on this topic, why would Satoshi Nakamoto create something that is not meant to be used worldwide by the mass? It's not like in today's economy Bitcoin has a big place anyway. Please read the original paper of Satoshi posted on page one.

[DooMAD]

Last time i checked there were a few 2mb blocks got mined.

Where the fuck that 1mb is coming from?

Yep, there's one.  2070.925 KB.  I don't think anyone's claiming that we still have a 1MB cap (or at least I hope not, because I'll be questioning their reading comprehension).  This thread is asking why the old 1MB cap was implemented to begin with, but now that's been answered, we seem to be drifting off course slightly.  

So yeah, to sum up, it was Hal Finney's idea, but you can't ask him what the long-term plan was since he sadly passed away.  Satoshi was obviously part of the decision making process, but good luck figuring out who, exactly, to ask there.  Ray Dillinger is still around and you can read some of their thoughts about the early days and where things subsequently ended up here.  But we're now past all that and moving forward.  Not necessarily all in the same direction, so we'll see which chain gets it right in the long run, but moving forward.

[Ucy]

Simple answer:

Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.

Proof that NSA or CIA never created Bitcoin. They probabaly created Paypal or want Palpal like digital currencies?

It's several times I read the same answer on this topic, why would Satoshi Nakamoto create something that is not meant to be used worldwide by the mass? It's not like in today's economy Bitcoin has a big place anyway. Please read the original paper of Satoshi posted on page one.

I have some reasons why i think he didn't.

One of them is the use of ASICs for mining.  I bet he didn't anticipate that too.

[Anti-Cen]

If you want to pay less fees, use segwit. It has big blocks.

Segwit not save money unless all outputs are Segwit

Why should people pay $30 to convert to new address in extortion fees to miners
because development team broke existing client code and few exchanges use Segwit ?

You must be using it so even if you know someone that can receive these payments
then was the saving 50% or more like 20% like I am hearing ?

Since Swegwit came out in August 2017 fees continue to go up and that mempool
using queuing theory is always just out of reach so why do you think that is ?

[cellard]

Last time i checked there were a few 2mb blocks got mined.

Where the fuck that 1mb is coming from?

Yep, there's one.  2070.925 KB.  I don't think anyone's claiming that we still have a 1MB cap (or at least I hope not, because I'll be questioning their reading comprehension).  This thread is asking why the old 1MB cap was implemented to begin with, but now that's been answered, we seem to be drifting off course slightly.  

So yeah, to sum up, it was Hal Finney's idea, but you can't ask him what the long-term plan was since he sadly passed away.  Satoshi was obviously part of the decision making process, but good luck figuring out who, exactly, to ask there.  Ray Dillinger is still around and you can read some of their thoughts about the early days and where things subsequently ended up here.  But we're now past all that and moving forward.  Not necessarily all in the same direction, so we'll see which chain gets it right in the long run, but moving forward.

Simple answer:

Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.

Proof that NSA or CIA never created Bitcoin. They probabaly created Paypal or want Palpal like digital currencies?

Satoshi wanted bigger blocks eventually, as big as needed actually, and he didn't want most people running nodes but SPV wallets:

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

So in a way, BCash would be closer to what he was trying to accomplish, which would make the conspiracy of trying to get full nodes away from users and into the hands of governments/corporations and therefore Satoshi being part of this program more feasible.

But he also predicted how people would be against it:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring.  It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.

If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade.  The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both.  The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.

So... we will never understand what his true intentions were. As far as I know, what we know is having full nodes in the hands of a few corporations only would centralize the system at layer 0 (BCash). If LN centralizes or not, it's yet to be seen. I trust no one.

[FedrBodr]

I think it is just his choice or just first version of realization of blockchain technology, another blockchain has other sizes.

[cellard]

dinofelis continues to understimate the risk of having "10 datacenters running full validating nodes". It's easy to sit there and say everything would be fine, but that's in theory. Do you really want to risk it to find out what would happen if only 10 places in the world were validating for you what is and isn't a correct bitcoin transaction? Im not willing to find out. The higher number of nodes coming from different parties the more robust the network is against global attackers, this is rather obvious. If you aren't validating your own transactions, you are someone else's cuck.

[alko89]

Because he does what he want, he's a grown man leave him alone! And have some respect boy!!
He's the godfather of the new world

Best answer ever!XD

Maybe he knew altcoins would follow Bitcoin and didn't want to give Bitcoin a bigger edge.

[mindrust]

If you want to pay less fees, use segwit. It has big blocks.

Segwit not save money unless all outputs are Segwit

Why should people pay $30 to convert to new address in extortion fees to miners
because development team broke existing client code and few exchanges use Segwit ?

You must be using it so even if you know someone that can receive these payments
then was the saving 50% or more like 20% like I am hearing ?

Since Swegwit came out in August 2017 fees continue to go up and that mempool
using queuing theory is always just out of reach so why do you think that is ?

How did you come up with that number? Are you dumb enough to pay $30 while everybody else paying $5? (current fee for a max. 1 hour tx is 100sat/b)

If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.

[Anti-Cen]

So... we will never understand what his true intentions were. As far as I know, what we know is having full nodes in the hands of a few corporations only would centralize the system at layer 0 (BCash). If LN centralizes or not, it's yet to be seen. I trust no one.

The dispersed network theory where even if everyone kept open two channels instead of just one because these things
are expensive in miner fees has been blown out the water and it would be like trying to use the Tor network with 300 relay nodes
and that's if you could workout the routing.

I contend that having banking hubs is centralization and was a bank to go down then people would broadcast a message
on the Bitcoin network en-mass and the BTC block-chain at just 7 transactions per second could not cope with demand and unless all
the LN internal channels are able to close down gracefully then chaos would ensue.

In the lighting Network white paper they even talk about "Spending accounts" and "Saving Accounts" to be used for security
and reading whats shown below I can even image insurance brokers being built into the network to reduce risk

If one wishes to broadcast the transaction chain instead of agreeing
to do a Funding Close or replacement with a new Commitment Transaction,
one would communicate with the third party and broadcast the chain to the
blockchain. If the counterparty refuses the notice from the third party to
cooperate, the penalty is rewarded to the non-cooperative party. In most
instances, participants may be indifferent to the transaction fees in the event
of an uncooperative counterparty.

Yes sure, here you go miners have another $30 on me and just where is that button in my
wallet to contest transaction since it is built into the protocol or will the banking nodes all
be running much more sophisticated software which put paid to the saying "Anyone can be a bank"


 

[Anti-Cen]

How did you come up with that number? Are you dumb enough to pay $30 while everybody else paying $5? (current fee for a max. 1 hour tx is 100sat/b)

If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.

I like a man with attitude so wait a few seconds and I will check the charts and be right back to you

Nope it's $15 according to this https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html
and was about $30 a week ago when I last looked but I will reduce it to $25 to take in to account
the $55 it was at. Ripple fees are so low that they don't show up on most charts so if $5.00 makes you feel smart then jobs
a good one.

[dinofelis]

Simple answer:

Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.

Nope.  Read his e-mail of November 2008:

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

He understood perfectly how it would go.

The only thing he missed, was the collaboration of mining into pools.  He didn't realize that people could pool together, and sell part of their hashing effort into a fraction of a block reward, so in his opinion, there would have been more individual miner nodes.

That said, mining itself is automatically limited to a finite number of sensible participants.  It wouldn't make sense to be 1 million independent mining nodes (the only nodes Satoshi considered, were mining nodes: he never considered non-mining full nodes as meaningful - and he was right).   The reason that it doesn't make much sense to have 1 million mining nodes, is the fact that there are only 52 600 blocks mined per year.  

Even if there were 1 million mining nodes with all having exactly the same hash rate, that would mean that *on average* a mining node would win ONE SINGLE BLOCK every 20 years.  But given statistical fluctuations, you might as well mine for 50 years and never have a block.  Or you might mine for 3 years and be lucky and find a block.

Given that all capital has a power law distribution, and never a uniform distribution, even if you would only have 5000 mining nodes, where, with a uniform distribution, each node would, on average, mine 10 blocks per year, the power law distribution would give most blocks to the 1000 upper class miners, and almost never a block to each of the 4000 others.  

So it would, in any case, in Satoshi's mind, not have been meaningful, statistically, to have many thousands of nodes.

The strategy of pooling together has of course strongly amplified this effect, and he wasn't aware of that.  In a certain way, mining pools add a small sniff of decentralization to the, in any case, obvious centralization that the economies of scale would induce in the competition for mining.  If mining pools weren't possible, we would quite possibly simply have 5 or 10 mining nodes, period.  Who can, effectively, still compete in *solo mining* as Satoshi saw it ?  The industrial proportions of mining make solo mining only available to a big company.  You'd have Intel vs Motorola vs Nvidia vs AMD or something.  Now, with mining pools, even with a modest mining investment, you can still contribute.  However, the "voting power" of a mining-subcontractor is very small: he can just go to another mining pool.  But it is better than nothing.

[mindrust]

How did you come up with that number? Are you dumb enough to pay $30 while everybody else paying $5? (current fee for a max. 1 hour tx is 100sat/b)

If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.

I like a man with attitude so wait a few seconds and I will check the charts and be right back to you

Nope it's $15 according to this https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html
and was about $30 a week ago when I last looked so look like your a slot-machine player who's getting upset with
me because his tokens are going down

Ripple fees are so low that they don't show up on most charts so if $5.00 makes you feel smart then jobs
a good one.

Here is your chance, use segwit and fees instantly reduced to $1-2

[Anti-Cen]

Here is your chance, use segwit and fees instantly reduced to $1-2

Well that would cost me $15 to convert, won't work with my Jaxx or Exodus wallet that I like or
shapeshift or most of the exchanges and why should I pay for the because the developers decides
to break backwards compatibility without asking us first

Man why you defending the bankers and the $1-2 is bull even if sending to Segwit address 
not that I know any

[mindrust]

Here is your chance, use segwit and fees instantly reduced to $1-2

Well that would cost me $15 to convert, won't work with my Jaxx or Exodus wallet that I like or
shapeshift or most of the exchanges and why should I pay for the because the developers decides
to break backwards compatibility without asking us first

Man why you defending the bankers and the $1-2 is bull even if sending to Segwit address 
not that I know any

You are clearly sent here to do some concern trolling. Nobody is paying $15. Pay your $5 and get on with it. If you don't like it go use whatever the fuck you want.

[Anti-Cen]

You are clearly sent here to do some concern trolling. Nobody is paying $15. Pay your $5 and get on with it. If you don't like it go use whatever the fuck you want.

I gave you the link, it says $15 so get your nose out of the miners bum because it's gone brown

Lets see a link that has them at $5