Satoshi's original idea...

[snatoshi]

Was Satoshi's thinking of a real peer-to-peer cash system allowing micropayments to happen or was he just wanting to make a threat and rebellion for the current scam financial system?

In the original white paper you can found he was aiming to bring to the world a peer-to-peer cash system and you can see also from the following original white paper Satoshi's quote:

While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.

So since the beginning Satoshi was indeed worried about the trust model the financial system keep from themselves.

In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions.

He was indeed, most worried about the trust issue rather than allowing micropayments with a peer-to-peer cash system. This was understandable because from the beginning nobody couldn't tell if the system proposed were going to be successful or not so was better first to solve the trust issue and mostly because the recent 2008 financial crisis.

Some other Satoshi's quote that suggest the aiming to micropayments:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services.  

So in conclusion you can say Satoshi indeed solve the trust issue of a centralized monetary system and although today Bitcoin is the most widely used cryptocurrency that allows wealth transfer in a decentralized way it also lack of the main features purposes that is to accomplish small casual transactions with lower costs.

So in my personal point of view I see Satoshi's first attempt to solve the centralized trust issue with a decentralized ledger called now blockchain but then for micropayments we found it's vulnerabilities and we call them scaling issues. So my hope is, in the 10th anniversary of Bitcoin we can retake his original idea and now with the research and advance of the decentralized systems we can found a better way to accomplish it's main idea.

I know it's just matter of time Bitcoin will solve all it's issues and reach the adoption and awareness it deserves all across the world  

Links: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  

[1715608353]

1715608353

[1715608353]

1715608353

[dothebeats]

I don't think that the main purpose of Sayoshi creating bitcoin was to be rebllious; he just wanted to help people to have a say in the growing financial markets even without the help of the banks. Micropayments was never the main goal, too, but seeing the potential of the trust-less P2P cash system he devised, it was also noted (of course) to let people know what they can do with the coin. If I have a project that I wanted to share, I'd state all of its capabilities and weakness, too, so what Satoshi included on bitcoin's whitepaper is normally what any other project developers/creators would do, too.

As you can see, bitcoin is already a great tool for micropayments due to the recent scaling solution (SegWit)  and some people in poverty-stricken countries are utilizing the value of bitcoin to live day-to-day (Venezuela). These visions were somewhat addressed by his creations today, and there's really nothing to argue about bitcoin's true purpose as in the end, it still gets the job done.

[squatter]

So in conclusion you can say Satoshi indeed solve the trust issue of a centralized monetary system and although today Bitcoin is the most widely used cryptocurrency that allows wealth transfer in a decentralized way it also lack of the main features purposes that is to accomplish small casual transactions with lower costs.

So in my personal point of view I see Satoshi's first attempt to solve the centralized trust issue with a decentralized ledger called now blockchain but then for micropayments we found it's vulnerabilities and we call the scaling issues. So my hope is, in the 10th anniversary of Bitcoin we can retake his original idea and now with the research and advance of the decentralized systems we can found a better way to accomplish it's main idea.

That's how it goes -- decentralization has costs. The linear scaling model increasingly disincentivizes micro-payments as demand for block space rises. This is necessary because of Bitcoin's limited supply: Eventually fees, rather than block subsidy, need to incentivize miners.

The best solution seems to be offloading transactions onto exponentially scaling platforms that retain trustlessness. The Lightning Network is exciting in this respect, but it definitely has some drawbacks vs. the Bitcoin protocol. (e.g. you need to keep your private keys online)

[pooya87]

when you "invent" something new, you hope to solve a million different things with it and that your creation is as perfect as possible. but of course that is impossible to do. you can not foresee everything and solve everything to have the perfect creation. bitcoin is meant for micro-transactions and it  does work for them now too as the fee is low most of the times but not all the times. and that is because scaling is not something you solve once and be rid of it. it is something that we will be constantly struggling with because of the blockchain technology's design. in other words every now and then we need to improve it. last year we had Segregated Witness and that improved scaling. pretty soon we need to do it again and improve it more. both on-chain and with help of second layer (LN).

[franky1]

first of all micro payments. are the things that itunes, google, facebook, spotify do. where they charge $0.0001 for something(royalties per track played, payment per advert viewed, commission per youtube viewed)
do not be fooled into the myth that a micro payment is "a starbucks coffee"
the whole not fit for starbuck coffee has been the rhetoric of a group of people that want to say bitcoin is broke for normal spending

bitcoin does not NEED LN
USERS can CHOOSE if they want to use a convenient different network
LN is not part of bitcoin
LN is a separate network for any compatible coin for convenience
(much like visa is convenient for fiat. but is not itself a fiat or where people store their funds)

bitcoin had to be altered to be compatible to LN. LN was not built to be compatible with bitcoin.
many coins can use LN, thats the whole point of it.

a few people need to stop advertising LN as a bitcoin feature and treat it as a multicoin convenience service

LN is a CONVENIENCE separate network service for people that may see benefit to lock funds up with other people and use with other peoples consent and authorisation for convenience.. but not essential for people to use.
..

the point of blockchain coins is to get away from needing to lock funds up with other people,
the point of bitcoin was made to get away from needing other peoples consent/authorisation.
the point of bitcoin was to be something that is accountable and fully auditable that no certain group could just alter at a whim

[presduterte]

Transaction fees remain low enough to enable near-micropayments, but you know, sending money to friends and family via PayPal remains free.

Meanwhile the U.S. dollar remains the go-to safe haven investment and one of the stablest forms of currency in the world.

"The USD is the worst form of currency besides all others tried."

What I worry about is what happens when/if the price of BTC gets much lower and the mining difficulty goes higher -- will that lead to a further centralization of miners? I would assume so, as only those with cheap power and highly efficient systems will be able to make a profit from mining.

[franky1]

Transaction fees remain low enough to enable near-micropayments, but you know, sending money to friends and family via PayPal remains free.

Meanwhile the U.S. dollar remains the go-to safe haven investment and one of the stablest forms of currency in the world.

"The USD is the worst form of currency besides all others tried."

What I worry about is what happens when/if the price of BTC gets much lower and the mining difficulty goes higher -- will that lead to a further centralization of miners? I would assume so, as only those with cheap power and highly efficient systems will be able to make a profit from mining.

mining pools do not set rules. they just collate transactions in a format that must meet the rules of the network.
if its not in the format. it gets rejected.
all pools can do is decide to include or exclude transactions.

if pools start purposefully doing "empty blocks" then the network can just reject blocks. and let other pools win. even if other pools dont have the same top hashpower..
its not as simple as best hashpower wins. its about the first block that satisfies the communities preferences. and no pool with any hashpower can dictate that.

so relax about pools. its the developers who code the rules you should be concerned about.

...
what you dont realise is that when btc goes down and difficulty goes up. there comes to a paradigm where if its too expensive to mine, people will buy. when its too expensive to buy. people will mine.
this is the underlying value which over the last 11 months tested at $5800 bottom..
speculation, hype sits above this to create daily, weekly waves of price above the bottom.

so in your worry of low price high difficulty. people will buy coin until the numbers balance out again.

[Haunebu]

I don't think that the main purpose of Sayoshi creating bitcoin was to be rebllious; he just wanted to help people to have a say in the growing financial markets even without the help of the banks. Micropayments was never the main goal, too, but seeing the potential of the trust-less P2P cash system he devised, it was also noted (of course) to let people know what they can do with the coin. If I have a project that I wanted to share, I'd state all of its capabilities and weakness, too, so what Satoshi included on bitcoin's whitepaper is normally what any other project developers/creators would do, too.

As you can see, bitcoin is already a great tool for micropayments due to the recent scaling solution (SegWit)  and some people in poverty-stricken countries are utilizing the value of bitcoin to live day-to-day (Venezuela). These visions were somewhat addressed by his creations today, and there's really nothing to argue about bitcoin's true purpose as in the end, it still gets the job done.

I agree. I never felt that Satoshi's main goal was to cause more problems(As if we don't have enough already) and instead focused on solving issues like the ability to conduct financial transactions online without any sort of outside interference as you stated. This is the primary reason why I even decided to join this market in the first place since it honestly felt like a dream to me. I never thought that there would be a possibility of conducting online transactions online anonymously in this manner which is what Satoshi was looking to accomplish in my opinion.

[coinwizard_]

These issues will be resolved with the lightning network unless someone comes up with a better proposal, and no one mention shitcoin cash which is just a money making fork that confuses newbies

[presduterte]

mining pools do not set rules. they just collate transactions in a format that must meet the rules of the network.
if its not in the format. it gets rejected.
all pools can do is decide to include or exclude transactions.

A lot of what you said makes sense, but if the bitcoin price is too low and energy and associated production costs to mine bitcoin are too high, why would somebody bother mining a bitcoin, if it costs more to mine than it does to purchase?

https://i.investopedia.com/image/jpeg/1520501899285/bitcoin_mining_costs_around_world_chart.jpg

A lot of the world is already priced out of bitcoin mining. Seems like if the price keeps declining only a handful of countries will find their mining operations to be profitable. That's why I brought up the whole "centralization" aspect. I realize this is a hypothetical situation, and also that mining pools don't set the rules, but they nevertheless have economic power and more say in how the network is run than normal nodes.

[figmentofmyass]

mining pools do not set rules. they just collate transactions in a format that must meet the rules of the network.
if its not in the format. it gets rejected.
all pools can do is decide to include or exclude transactions.

A lot of what you said makes sense, but if the bitcoin price is too low and energy and associated production costs to mine bitcoin are too high, why would somebody bother mining a bitcoin, if it costs more to mine than it does to purchase?

eventually, this should discourage mining and difficulty should adjust downwards as miners shut down. the cost of mining would therefore drop as well. that's why it doesn't make much sense to focus on the current cost of mining: it adjusts upwards and downwards based on speculation and profitability.

[Wind_FURY]

OP, Satoshi's original vision was to make a "peer to peer" cash system. But the same as some software journey, things change. It is a long story of how Bitcoin got to where it now is, I would suggest reading its history.

Plus to make some people angry. Bitcoin is not peer to peer. It is a broadcast network. Lightning is peer to peer, it literally sends transactions from one peer to another.

[jseverson]

A lot of the world is already priced out of bitcoin mining. Seems like if the price keeps declining only a handful of countries will find their mining operations to be profitable. That's why I brought up the whole "centralization" aspect. I realize this is a hypothetical situation, and also that mining pools don't set the rules, but they nevertheless have economic power and more say in how the network is run than normal nodes.

It won't be as much a problem with centralization as much as it is with distribution.

Miners will be less distributed in a sense that they'll only exist in a few countries, but they would still be under the control of many distinct people, so it would stay decentralized. Difficulty adjustments will slow this process down, and along with the rise of renewable energy tech, this may not be a very significant concern in the future.

[presduterte]

eventually, this should discourage mining and difficulty should adjust downwards as miners shut down. the cost of mining would therefore drop as well. that's why it doesn't make much sense to focus on the current cost of mining: it adjusts upwards and downwards based on speculation and profitability.

Except the price has done nothing but go down during 2018, and the mining difficulty has increased several fold. There seems to be very little correlation between the two, at least this year. If anything its been an inverse correlation.

Plus to make some people angry. Bitcoin is not peer to peer. It is a broadcast network. Lightning is peer to peer, it literally sends transactions from one peer to another.

 

[Sam658878]

the biggest problem is that Bitcoin is now used not for transactions, but usual market technologies are used to raise money on its shifting nature
and it kinda slows the potential of BTC

[javadsalehi]

Bitcoin has been one of the greatest innovations we have ever seen. Satoshi played a great role to change the payment system. But we cannot ignore that this system must be improved. There are some problems should be solved. This is same as any other innovation had every new thing.

[T o x i c a l]

Bitcoin is not only a means of payment. At the heart of Bitcoin is the blockchain - this is what we should be grateful to whoever called himself Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever he really is. And now the blockchain's ideas are being introduced into all possible aspects of the economy and technology. I think that in the coming years, the whole world will function with the help of blockchains of various kinds.

[squatter]

eventually, this should discourage mining and difficulty should adjust downwards as miners shut down. the cost of mining would therefore drop as well. that's why it doesn't make much sense to focus on the current cost of mining: it adjusts upwards and downwards based on speculation and profitability.

Except the price has done nothing but go down during 2018, and the mining difficulty has increased several fold. There seems to be very little correlation between the two, at least this year. If anything its been an inverse correlation.

That's because of miner speculation. Even in the face of falling price, miners are willing to bring new hardware online. Ultimately, this won't always be true if the long term price trend reverses. In late 2014 or early 2015, when Bitcoin was in a long term correction, the hash rate went sideways. If the market stayed bearish for longer, it probably would have started dropping. Eventually, in a falling market, miners will run out of capital to burn and won't be able to continue mining unprofitably.

[farosa]

I think that Satoshi's only desire was to make the economy better. If it created for micropayment, why would it be limited? It is impossible for us to see that anything limited in the world remains at a low price. Also, if it was created for micropayment, it was not considered with no value against the paper money so, if you think it is not suitable for micropayment according to today's price.

[bitvalak]

This is true, a small number of transactions is a problem. Because sometimes the number of transactions can be less than the transaction costs themselves. So many tokens have sprung up that offer ideas to overcome this, but even now I think that people's interest in these tokens is still below the scale of people's interest in bitcoin. Hopefully this problem will be solved soon so that bitcoin can reach all lower classes to the upper classes.