Looking back at the White paper... Do you think Satoshi would be proud of us?

[Kakmakr]

While BTC is not known for being used in direct payments without the us of 3rd party services I think that Satoshi will be more than happy on what BTC has achieved. Even if it failed to become a popular payment method used by a lot of people I think that Satoshi is more than happy to see that it created a new industry (cryptocurrency market) and also to see that the conccept of Blockchain is now being used to other ways inside businesses it clearly has helped a lot of people and entities to grow more.

The problem is this new industry is built on centralized control and he did not want that. Satoshi wanted us to be free from currency price manipulation and also exploitation from centralized services that always misuse their power.

We already see how some of the bigger exchanges are misusing their power and how people's accounts are locked when they break the ToS agreements. <Simple stuff like using their accounts for online gambling.> 

[1714923538]

1714923538

[1714923538]

1714923538

[1714923538]

1714923538

[1714923538]

1714923538

[Rath_]

SegWit is good and all, but it is nothing more than a buy-time solution in the run-up to the lightning network. Even with the lightning network running in full glory, we still need larger blocks, more so than what SegWit provides.

The Lightning Network is working quite well despite being still in an early-state. Broadcasting on-chain transactions is need for opening and closing channels but we can lower the cost of doing so and improve privacy by introducing Channel factories and Schnorr signatures. Unfortunately, it will take a lot of time to implement each of these solutions.

[Theb]

The problem is this new industry is built on centralized control and he did not want that. Satoshi wanted us to be free from currency price manipulation and also exploitation from centralized services that always misuse their power.

We already see how some of the bigger exchanges are misusing their power and how people's accounts are locked when they break the ToS agreements. <Simple stuff like using their accounts for online gambling.> 

Unfortunately Bitcoin don't have any kinds of safeguards in order to avoid the things you have mentioned. Also without any regulation taking place mass adoption seems to be impossible as from what I am seeing the cryptocurrency industry needs the government more than the government needs them. All the scams and frauds and other criminal activities taking place in this industry is hurting their economy that is why they need to step in. It seems to me that BTC cannot purely act independently with the original two willing parties agreeing to the transaction.

[nuraziaaziz]

I think he would. Look how far Bitcoin has reached many users by gaining their trust to use the applications and helps and enable users to hold on to their wealth instead of having Banks as the third parties.

[Kakmakr]

The problem is this new industry is built on centralized control and he did not want that. Satoshi wanted us to be free from currency price manipulation and also exploitation from centralized services that always misuse their power.

We already see how some of the bigger exchanges are misusing their power and how people's accounts are locked when they break the ToS agreements. <Simple stuff like using their accounts for online gambling.> 

Unfortunately Bitcoin don't have any kinds of safeguards in order to avoid the things you have mentioned. Also without any regulation taking place mass adoption seems to be impossible as from what I am seeing the cryptocurrency industry needs the government more than the government needs them. All the scams and frauds and other criminal activities taking place in this industry is hurting their economy that is why they need to step in. It seems to me that BTC cannot purely act independently with the original two willing parties agreeing to the transaction.

Governments are not the only people who can "protect" you from these scammers. A lot of platforms have some kind of self regulatory frameworks and systems to deal with these scammers. A lot of Whitehat hackers are doing this as a free service to the public.


We can get people with enough knowledge to trace these criminals and then handing them over to the authorities. We can also create our own "Review" sites to sort the good from the bad. You do not need government regulations to prevent these scams, this community can police themselves. 

[gentlemand]

I do not think that Satoshi Nakamoto would be proud of the current use of Bitcoin mainly as a speculative means of accumulating value. Satoshi wanted his bitcoin as an alternative payment system. As a payment system, Bitcoin is almost never used. But by this time, due to speculation in the market, the price of Bitcoin was increased to $ 20,000. Even now it costs over $ 6,000. Did Satoshi want his bitcoin to be practically unaffordable for ordinary people? I do not think.

In what way is it unaffordable? Right now anyone can buy one dollar's worth and fees are manageable, for now at least.

Satsoshi would have to have been stupid not to have expected a speculative phase. Everything has to go through one before the world decides what its true use and value is. I don't think it'll ever be used as a currency, but if it does that's the final use case, not the first.

If I were Satoshi I'd be sad about the overwhelming centralisation of mining, but I think he anticipated that becoming a reality too. Perhaps not as fast as it did.

[Privatoria]

Bitcoin has shown tremendous growth in the number of supporters, capitalization and distribution throughout the world in ten years. Satoshi should be pleased with these results.

[BitHodler]

If I were Satoshi I'd be sad about the overwhelming centralisation of mining, but I think he anticipated that becoming a reality too. Perhaps not as fast as it did.

Probably, but would he be just as sad about how we're working with one single implementation? Because that's the reality of the day. Bitcoin Core accounts for +98% of what Bitcoin currently represents.

That's a form of centralization too, and I'm not really sure if he would consider that to be bad factor. People, regardless of who they are, will accept things more easily if it benefits them directly.

In other words, my toy being centralized around me is good, my toy being centralized around you is bad. We have to compromise on decentralization somewhere, and in this case it keeps the various sides well balanced.

I got what I want and you got what you want. Fair deal.

[kendra1107]

Being the genius that Satoshi is/was, I wouldn't be surprised if he had actually foreseen Bitcoin becoming what it is today. What is it if you may ask, well that's another topic. The original white paper was clear and specific with its goal/vision. But for whatever it's worth, good or bad, things happen and all we can really do is accept them as they come especially when the government enters the scene.

[franky1]

SegWit is good and all, but it is nothing more than a buy-time solution in the run-up to the lightning network. Even with the lightning network running in full glory, we still need larger blocks, more so than what SegWit provides.

The Lightning Network is working quite well despite being still in an early-state. Broadcasting on-chain transactions is need for opening and closing channels but we can lower the cost of doing so and improve privacy by introducing Channel factories and Schnorr signatures. Unfortunately, it will take a lot of time to implement each of these solutions.

a segwit transaction. byte for byte is no better than legacy
segwit was only conceived.. purely to be LN compatible
.....
LN is not a bitcoin network. its an independent network that allows multiple coins to use (LN asks for which chainhash channels are to monitor) its why litecoin, vert coins and bitcoin all have new address formats bc1q ltc1q

LN is not sole 100% control(multisig requires channel partner signature). and even funnier factories make it so its even less sole control as it needs not only the multisig channel partner signature, but also the factory signature

research eltoo factories (when close session sent back to factory (before broadcast) the factory has to 'sign all' as the final signature)

[Kakmakr]

If I were Satoshi I'd be sad about the overwhelming centralisation of mining, but I think he anticipated that becoming a reality too. Perhaps not as fast as it did.

Probably, but would he be just as sad about how we're working with one single implementation? Because that's the reality of the day. Bitcoin Core accounts for +98% of what Bitcoin currently represents.

That's a form of centralization too, and I'm not really sure if he would consider that to be bad factor. People, regardless of who they are, will accept things more easily if it benefits them directly.

In other words, my toy being centralized around me is good, my toy being centralized around you is bad. We have to compromise on decentralization somewhere, and in this case it keeps the various sides well balanced.

I got what I want and you got what you want. Fair deal.

It is working as it was supposed to work, because the decision to use the current implementation is based on consensus and if 98% of the people agree that it is the best implementation, then so be it.

If someone genuinely come up with something much better, then people will consider this and they will shift their decision to support the new implementation. Most people are satisfied that Bitcoin Core is solid and safe, so what more do they need?

[zikzag]

I think society is looking for a middle ground. What would the government adopted bitcoin. Without regulation, Bitcoin will not enter the masses of the world.

[BitHodler]

Most people are satisfied that Bitcoin Core is solid and safe, so what more do they need?

I'm not saying that we need anything more. I was just pointing at how it's not just the mining aspect that's centralized if you look at it like that, and why it doesn't necessarily translates into something negative.

There is always an aspect of Bitcoin and basically any other decentralized currency that you can point at as being centralized, or an aspect that the original creator would have liked to be different if he/she was still in charge.

If you look at Bitcoin as a whole, it's decentralized enough to protect that what we value the most, and that's the only thing that matters.

[jseverson]

.I think nothing wrong with exchange and other third party.

You're right that there's nothing inherently wrong with them, but they go directly against what Bitcoin wants to provide -- peer-to-peer digital cash transactions without relying on third party trust. Bitcoin was literally created so that people can transfer money without needing services like Visa in the middle, but people opted to use middlemen like Bitpay anyway.

Exchanges don't really go directly against this unless you use them as your primary wallet.

[franky1]

It is working as it was supposed to work, because the decision to use the current implementation is based on consensus and if 98% of the people agree that it is the best implementation, then so be it.

If someone genuinely come up with something much better, then people will consider this and they will shift their decision to support the new implementation. Most people are satisfied that Bitcoin Core is solid and safe, so what more do they need?

i guess you forgot that the core devs themselves actually told the community that even if any% didnt upgrade to a new feature that the new feature gets adopted anyway
old nodes couldnt oppose a certain feature last year. as old nodes would blindly accept blocks even if they cant signature validate the new featured transactions. this is because the new feature supplies old nodes with a stripped/translated block that appears normal but not fully validate. thus old nodes couldnt reject those blocks due to the 'inflight upgrade'(consensus bypass).

so if the network was 98% not upgraded. those 98% end up as downstream filtered and stripped nodes. and only 2% are treated as full relay full validation full archival nodes.

so go check your history. things have changed

[charlotte04]

"What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.": Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper is 10 years old today!

Hardly anyone are making Bitcoin payments without going through some kind of centralized third party, like payment processors and exchanges or wallet providers.

Satoshi wanted us to use Bitcoin directly between two willing parties, without any intermediary services.

Do you think these services are crushing Satoshi's original dreams and goals for this technology or did we just evolve to satisfy the requirements of the governments that wants to control this technology. 

Do we need to go back to the original vision for this technology or do we continue on this new path?

I think he would not be proud much because some people are using Bitcoin to wrong things and manipulations, but for some thing that we have done using it he will surely be proud of his work.

[1Referee]

Because that's the reality of the day. Bitcoin Core accounts for +98% of what Bitcoin currently represents.

That's a form of centralization too, and I'm not really sure if he would consider that to be bad factor. People, regardless of who they are, will accept things more easily if it benefits them directly.

I agree that it is a form of centralization, but not one that's harming anyone here.

The only advantage of more implementations is that when a certain implementation for whatever reason crashes (could be due to a bug), the others will keep the network up and running.

The downside is that we are dealing with different parties all thinking to be the better cut of the pie, which is very damaging because as we have seen with plenty of different coins, it results in internal warefare where unhappy parties fork off at some point. Bitcoin in its current form has never been this pure now we no longer have to deal with BCash ideology.

Speaking of BCash, they are going through internal warfare as we speak which as many here expect, will very likely result in the bitter party to fork off.