Satoshi's original idea...

[Jackolantern]

I like his ideas much as all of them are great. I respect him and think that he is a great person able to brainstorm creative ideas like a genius mind. Hope soon he will braistorm another idea

[squatter]

old nodes are not compatible. they are handed a pidgeon english translation.. theres a difference
its why even the devs clearly pointed out that old nodes become downstream/filtered(their buzzwords) nodes instead of part of the main relay network. they even drew a picture to make it easy to understand.

old nodes do not relay blocks to segwit nodes nor relay segwit transactions. they only receive a stripped down block and then sit on the edge of the network

If older nodes aren't compatible with Segwit, why can I send Segwit outputs to legacy addresses? Why can I receive payments from legacy addresses to my Segwit wallet? Why do older nodes accept Segwit transactions and blocks as valid?

You have a very strange definition of compatibility.

com·pat·i·bil·i·ty
Computing: the ability of one computer, piece of software, etc., to work with another.

if you actually look at the data a old node gets. and that it no longer fully validates all data but just blindly passes things.. you will see the shoddy crap. if it was compatible then old nodes would be on par and same level.. you know still relaying full data and validating full data

You're making a distinction between full vs. partial validation, not compatibility. Also, non-Segwit nodes still validate transactions and blocks against their consensus rules. They don't "blindly" do anything.

[figmentofmyass]

old nodes are handed stripped data to BYPASS a consensus mechanism that would otherwise have gotten segwit blocks rejected
thats why luke JR done what he done. it was not a softfork in a sense of consensus. it was a bypass to avoid a consensus event. luke JR even said so himself that it bypasses the requirement of a consensus

"consensus" requires the agreement of all participants. that's why it's either "opt in" or "opt out". i don't care what luke jr says, and i'm guessing you're mischaracterizing what he said.

as long as miners don't partition the network by refusing to build on a soft fork's chain, then that soft fork is compatible with the existing consensus. this is why segwit nodes and legacy nodes coexist on the same network. if segwit violated consensus, segwit nodes (and all their blocks/transactions) would have been rejected by the bitcoin network.

maybe one day you will actually start to care less about devs and care more about the network

on the contrary, my entire point is about network consensus and has nothing to do with developers. you, on the hand, seem extremely focused on the core devs and their evil ploys to take away your ability to "vote".......

[DooMAD]

(yea core defaults change addresses to be segwit even if people didnt "opt-in"(your favourite word))

Does the client you run do that?  No?  Then I guess you haven't opted in, have you?   *exasperated sigh*

One minute you're saying SegWit adoption is too low, then suddenly you're whining about default settings to help increase adoption?  I mean, pick an argument already.  Actually, don't bother, since it won't make rational sense anyway.

buzzwords
repeated rhetoric
script
repeating the same gibberish

run some scenarios
independant(sic) research
mandatory updates
consensus bypass
developer control

Sure franky1, whatever you say.  

And stop double-posting, FFS.  There's an edit button for a reason.

[rodskee]

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.

Yeah i agree to you people knows satoshi creating this new technology of digital currency to help people for the easy and convenient usefull micropayment system anywhere in the world
More country's adopt this new digital currency because tgey knows how to help their country for ecnomic grow
The oginal goal of satoshi cpis to help for the people to got job use this digital currency.

[oseikuf44]

Peer to peer internet transaction of was the basic idea of what satoshi outlined in his whitepaper and not as a form of investment as many perceive bitcoins today. Today out of greed, bitcoins is used by most people to scam and trick innocent people into ponzi scheme and other quick money scheme, meanwhile that is not the original idea of bitcoins.

[franky1]

old nodes are not compatible. they are handed a pidgeon english translation.. theres a difference
its why even the devs clearly pointed out that old nodes become downstream/filtered(their buzzwords) nodes instead of part of the main relay network. they even drew a picture to make it easy to understand.

old nodes do not relay blocks to segwit nodes nor relay segwit transactions. they only receive a stripped down block and then sit on the edge of the network

If older nodes aren't compatible with Segwit, why can I send Segwit outputs to legacy addresses? Why can I receive payments from legacy addresses to my Segwit wallet? Why do older nodes accept Segwit transactions and blocks as valid?

firstly your talking about transactions. not nodes. (nice meander by the way..(facepalm))
learn about the network topology.
also older nodes do not accept segwit transactions as valid. the full validation check of a segwit transaction gets bypassed and is auto deemed as accepted. (not valid(there is a difference)) OLD NODES DO NOT SIGNATURE VERIFY A SEGWIT TX)
without choice to reject a segwit block (countering doomads endless belief thats it was an opt-in event. and counters the doomad belief that it was a consensus event)

when a old node gets a block and sees that a transaction paying thir legacy address was funded via a segwit input.. the node does not validate the signature of the segwit input.
the premiss(flaw) is that the devs are saying that for it to get into a block a segwit pool node would have validated it. and also the segwit cluster of relay nodes would have validated and relayed it. so by the time a legacy node gets the stripped version. that bypasses the validation check of the segwit transaction.. the node is suppose to just accept it as valid

(making the whole bip for the segwit adoption break the whole principle of people wanting to run a full validation node in a consensus network)
segwit should have only activated with a real 95% segwit verifying node adoption.. which it did not

now this raises the point doomad circles around but never grasps

imagine your a fully validating node. but you dont want to OPT-IN. you dont download the latest version to opt-in. thus you would think that you are a part of consensus giving a no to the vote.
the reality is you never got a vote. the event you would have thought was a consensus event where the community got a choice...that was actually bypassed.

if you reconfigured your node to actually reject segwit blocks. in the hopes of actually giving a real 'NO' vote.
you would have got banned off the network even before segwit blocks were made.

if you were a pool and didnt signal to opt in. it would not be treated as a 'no' vote. it got treated as you wanting to have your blocks rejected and your node banned off the network.
so after the august 1st date.. that was mandated the nodes that were left on the network were a smaller portion that were a mix of segwit validating nodes. and blind 'acceptance' pigeon english nodes (downstream/filtered nodes)

then a couple weeks later the block data changed format without your consent and you will instead be handed a stripped block that you cannot fully validate every transaction anymore. and you have been thrown down the network topology level to be a downstream/filtered node that only gets pigeon english data that bypasses full validation tests

anyway..
doomad and your chums.. again i do recognise you keep trying to meander the topic.. again and again. and again. funny part is you are trying to argue the history of something thats been discussed at length for atleast a year now.
yet you still have not shown that you have done independent research outside your cabin club of chums

and dont bother replying if all you want to do is insult. that trick doesnt work. all your doing is insulting a username that has no birth certificate so its not even defamation. thus you gain nothing from it. its like you are just insulting a wall of text.

maybe best you guys go do some independent research. and stop just repeating the same empty arguments that have been circling for the last year plus.

if you dont like my comments on the subject. then dont meander other topics to keep discussing it.
again if you dont want the bear to bite about a certain topic. then dont poke it with the certain topic stick
stop meandering the topic and then crying because i reply to talk about your meander
and then dont get emotional and become insulting as it doesnt help you in any way

p.s
opt-in. means you physically have to do something to show agreement of..
if you automatically get thrown in. but treated as second class citizen. thats not opting in
if you automatically get thrown out before anything actually changes.. thats not consensus

[Wind_FURY]

windfury and your cabin fever camp.
in regards to LN
go learn ELTOO
multisig
12decimal transactions
offchain transactions
byzantine generals problem

factories
users pay into a factories address. funds are locked onchain
channels are not funded with the locked balance input
factory makes a OFFCHAIN payment to a channel
channel is funded with a OFFCHAIN IOU from factoriy
channels settlement is not a onchain broadcast, but a OFFCHAIN payment back to the factory with a request that the factory broadcasts a fund unlock onchain, or to re make new paymnt offchain to a new channel.
much like locking gold into fortknox and then playing with paper until you demand fortknow release whatever gold your paper allows you to have back

Can you give us any references and citations where this information came from? I really want to learn more.

spend some time learning it in detail, run some scenarios. actually use LN
as for how people can do transactions without LN go learn about multisig, then run some scenarios
maybe think about how with a joint bank account with your spouse, you dont need a special bank tool to then agree with your spouse who gets what. even a post-it note on a fridge will do

The idea behind the Lightning Network is to have both low cost transactions, and a low cost in system validation through a layered architecture.

The internet itself is the same.

oh and when you get to the lightbulb moment of the flaws of a post-it note. you may dawn on the idea of LN's flaw known as the byzantine generals issue(one party can edit their node and no community can validate the new orders/rules the edited node has. and the counterparty using autopilot and new viewing the raw tx data will blindly just follow orders handed to them or get blackmailed into a chargeback(revocation))

How? Consensus is still on-chain.

in regards to core not being satoshi's idea
go learn consensus
mandatory hard fork(august 1st 2017 contentious hard fork)
trojan soft fork(mid august 2017 consensus bypass using the stripped block data of pidgeon english data)

Bitcoin Cash supporters split the chain, maybe hoping to have everyone follow them. The miners activated Segwit on main-net. Let's move on and let the community choose what the want

yea august was comedy gold. performing a mandatory contentious hard fork to just be able to then do a consensus bypass softfork... truly amazing comedy backflipping happened.. all because core didnt get a 95% vote without the circus acts(only 40% vote without circus acts and 3 card trick games)

What is Core's fault? They were waiting to get 95% miner signalling for readiness, or go home having nothing. The UASF was not supported by Core.

many people for years have been doing offchain stuff without LN. exchanges have been doing it behind the scenes (research arbitrage reserves). people have even done 2party atomic swaps without LN for years

Are they trust-minimized? Are they better than Lightning?

anyway.. instead of trying to meander topics and just poke the bear
do some research
i have given you hints for months. but you still ask the same questions and then stick fingers in your ears. so just go do some research first this time

While you stop gaslighting. If you have been posting facts, why would we argue with you?

[franky1]

windfury ill give you a little more respect than doomad as you dont always sling as much mud(insult) as much as him and others like lauda, carlton and the other club members i have seen you converse with.
but to put an end to the meandering
go here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5056910.0

[U2018]

Is Bitcoin still the bitcoin that Satoshi envisioned? Perhaps Satoshi’s Bitcoin concept has indeed succeeded, but unfortunately, the power of capital always not to be underestimated, interfering with and manipulating this market.

[franky1]

Is Bitcoin still the bitcoin that Satoshi envisioned? Perhaps Satoshi’s Bitcoin concept has indeed succeeded, but unfortunately, the power of capital always not to be underestimated, interfering with and manipulating this market.

bitcoin is not th bitcoin satoshi envisioned any more..(bitcoins ethos and original idea started getting twisted as soon as he left but most notably since 2013-14) when diverse decentralisation became more so central referenced but distributed.. they even emphasised that decentralisation was diminishing by calling themselves the "CORE"(center) team

the core devs are now in control and mandate their own roadmap plan. even when the community cant agree core still push their agenda through by bypassing consensus.

these team think blockchains are broke and cant scale. yet its their own code that has the limit which they refuse to move(starve your kid so you can eat on another network then blame your kid for not growing)

the other network the team desire so much is not a blockchain. its not even locked to only serve bitcoin. its a separate network for multiple coins and bitcoin has been manipulated to fit that network, rather than that network getting manipulated to fit bitcoin

things have changed since this team took over in 2013-14. and all it is doing is having them impose restrictions on bitcoin utility while they promote a totally separate network as the future of electronic payments.
.. but as you can read by the meandered topic of that teams defence social group. they dont like it if people talk about how bitcoin has changed to suit the corporate roadmap

[Wind_FURY]

But franky1, Bitcoin is like any other software "experiment" that could fail. It evolves. Plus if "Satosh's Vision" was the goal then would you agree that Bitcoin Cash should be "The Bitcoin"? Do you believe their roadmap to achieve that vision to be technically superior than what the Core developers are doing?

[franky1]

But franky1, Bitcoin is like any other software "experiment" that could fail. It evolves. Plus if "Satosh's Vision" was the goal then would you agree that Bitcoin Cash should be "The Bitcoin"? Do you believe their roadmap to achieve that vision to be technically superior than what the Core developers are doing?

if you think the only choice option is bitcoin core or bitcoin cash. then your still not seeing the bigger picture.
my main gripe is too many people think the only option is cores roadmap or F**k off

[zubrr51]

Since I learned about the existence of Bitcoin, I constantly admire the very idea of ​​its creation. It was so hard to invent it.

[kaisa]

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

I don't know exactly what the purpose of Satoshi is to create bitcoin, maybe you are right that Satoshi wants to rebel the existing monetary system. I think Satoshi also understands the problem of trust and scalability in advance. Trust about bitcoin can be answered when Satoshi doesn't exist, but he forgets to renew scalability, even though when bitcoin experienced hardfork and gave birth to BCH that had a block size bigger than bitcoin, they still remained loyal to bitcoin. Maybe in the future, i think Satoshi will give birth to a more perfect new technology later, even though he doesn't call me Satoshi.  

[kaisa]

But franky1, Bitcoin is like any other software "experiment" that could fail. It evolves. Plus if "Satosh's Vision" was the goal then would you agree that Bitcoin Cash should be "The Bitcoin"? Do you believe their roadmap to achieve that vision to be technically superior than what the Core developers are doing?

I'm not sure to argue with you but I think you should read this article: https://coinsutra.com/btc-vs-bch-bitcoin-cash/

[franky1]

But franky1, Bitcoin is like any other software "experiment" that could fail. It evolves. Plus if "Satosh's Vision" was the goal then would you agree that Bitcoin Cash should be "The Bitcoin"? Do you believe their roadmap to achieve that vision to be technically superior than what the Core developers are doing?

I'm not sure to argue with you but I think you should read this article: https://coinsutra.com/btc-vs-bch-bitcoin-cash/

that article has so main fails in it

1. bitcoin cash didnt not cause the bilateral split (consensus bypass on august 1st).
even the blockchain data can prove that by looking at the time stamp on the blockchains of which first made the diverting block(split)... (psst hint: it was core.. cash didnt even roll out until hours later. even the segwit fans made a big deal that cash didnt make a block for hours.. so how could cash instigate something if they couldnt even make a block to cause a controversal split(logic prevails over social drama tricks))
also the mandated USAF and the NYA were node shuffling tricks on the core network side..

2. people like ver are not coders. so thats a funny. you know.. its obvious.. oh wait. lets spell it out. ver didnt code it so how could he cause it.(he is just a social drama PR guy, not a dev)

3. cash is another network, they cant affect the core network so a year later people finger pointing at them .. makes no sense. do people point fingers at clams and worry clams is a threat?

the whole kardasian family drama of core vs cash is just a misdirection. just a ploy to not let people see what core actually did and instead of pointing to code proof. the finger pointers just point to the social drama of peoples faces, such as a video screen shot of a guy sticking up his middle finger (wow mega proof of code modification can be found in some pr guys middle finger)

to much attention is given to social drama tricks. yet it seems as soon as people talk about code, network protocol changes, all that happens in reply is mud slinging of insults. and more finger point of social drama of if you dont support core f**k off its their software let them control the network(facepalm)

[kaisa]

that article has so main fails in it

~snip~

Thank you Franky1 for the explanation, but at least the article can tell us that BTC and BCH are very different. I also understand that they are different based on the GitHub analysis. furthermore, we will see how people cheat with technology. They are purely doing business not technology development for humanity.

[franky1]

that article has so main fails in it

~snip~

Thank you Franky1 for the explanation, but at least the article can tell us that BTC and BCH are very different. I also understand that they are different based on the GitHub analysis. furthermore, we will see how people cheat with technology. They are purely doing business not technology development for humanity.

the github changes stats are meaningless.. the majority of core changes are not for bitcoin network benefit. but to mutate bitcoin for LN network benefit.

[bitfocus]

I think Satoshi's idea was to create a currency that can help people gain back financial freedom from Central Banking, Banking and Government's dirty politics and surveillance.