How liberal was Satoshi Nakamoto?

[uchegod-21]

I did not make this post to undermine satoshi. I cannot do that because I respect him so much. He created what I call financial revolution. He is the reason I am here today.
I asked this question because of my curiosity on why bitcoin block size was made 1mb. On wanting to know why Satoshi kept it at 1mb, I started a research and I saw a post in this forum dated 3rd October, 2010 by Jeff with username Jgarzik. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15121#msg15121 (I recommend you read it, so that you may justify my question)
Jgarzik wrote a code suggesting that the bitcoin block size should be increase to match paypal’s average transaction rate.
Few minutes later Theymos observed that applying the patch will make Jeff incompatible with other bitcoin clients.
At this time Satoshi came in in support of Theymos, see his statement.

+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it

From Satoshi’s reply you can see that he saw that there will be need to increasing the block size in the future. But he believed that it was too early for a hard fork or maybe when we get to the bridge we will cross it or some other reasons.
Jeff didn’t give up easily, he gave more reasons for the proposed increase and was actually supported by majority of the user under that thread.
What made me to question how liberal Satoshi was is, after reading this reply by caveden he didn’t change his decision.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

My question:

• What did you think made Satoshi keep the block at 1mb and did not consider to change it?
• In his statement “if we get closer to needing it, we will phase it”. Will there be a time for such change again, or it has been done already?

[1715455009]

1715455009

[1715455009]

1715455009

[1715455009]

1715455009

[mk4]

• What did you think made Satoshi keep the block at 1mb and did not consider to change it?

I'm definitely not the most technical person here, but as far as I know it was kept at 1 mb simply because there simply has been no reason to increase it back then. I mean, if I remember correctly, when I sort of "felt" the fees(when I couldn't call them "almost free") was in like early to mid 2017.

[ABCbits]

• In his statement “if we get closer to needing it, we will phase it”. Will there be a time for such change again, or it has been done already?

It has been done once when SegWit activated by replacing the limit from 1 MB to 4 kWu (million weight unit). But it's just matter of time before block size will be increased again.

[bitmover]

What made me to question how liberal Satoshi was is, after reading this reply by caveden he didn’t change his decision.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

My question:

• What did you think made Satoshi keep the block at 1mb and did not consider to change it?
• In his statement “if we get closer to needing it, we will phase it”. Will there be a time for such change again, or it has been done already?

what does this technical question have to do with satoshi's political stance (liberal or otherwise)?

From the political perspective, Bitcoin highly libertarian because it allows individuals to hold, transact, and control their money completely independently of the will of States, politicians and central banks. Bitcoin is a libertarian so is satoshi.

About the blocksize drama/discussion, this is already finished and discussed ad-nauseum in this forum and elsewhere.  And there is still plenty of material in the internet.

I can summarize this discussion for you, and explain that the network/community voted and decided to keep the block size. The solution is to make transactions smaller (segwit) virtually increasing block size capacity. You can read about it here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

Segregated Witness

Main article: Segregated Witness (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segregated_Witness)
The final solution deployed was Segwit, increasing the block size limit to 2-4 MB without a hardfork.

Additionally, the network will escalate in second layer solutions such as Lightning Network.

You can even read about second layer solutions in this brilliant Hal Finney post (the receiver of the first bitcoin transaction from satoshi)

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

[uchegod-21]

what does this technical question have to do with satoshi's political stance (liberal or otherwise)?

Oxford dictionary says Liberal is "the willingness to understand and respect other people's opinions, especially when it differs from yours".
That I why I used the word. Because it seems Satoshi was not willing to understand others opinions in the thread above. That is where I drew my title from.
Thank you for the technical exposition. Thank you mk4 and ETFbitcoin. I was thinking that since sig wit was not a hard fork, it is not regarded as a major update on the block side.

[pooya87]

what does this technical question have to do with satoshi's political stance (liberal or otherwise)?

Oxford dictionary says Liberal is "the willingness to understand and respect other people's opinions, especially when it differs from yours".
That I why I used the word. Because it seems Satoshi was not willing to understand others opinions in the thread above. That is where I drew my title from.

I'd like to think that one of the reasons why Satoshi went away was so that people stop focusing on what he thinks about bitcoin. You see, bitcoin is a decentralized currency that doesn't have one centralized authority deciding what opinion matters and what doesn't. The whole network does.
So to answer your question, it doesn't matter if Satoshi was "liberal" or not, he is not the decision maker, he is just the inventor.

[witcher_sense]

Oxford dictionary says Liberal is "the willingness to understand and respect other people's opinions, especially when it differs from yours".
That I why I used the word. Because it seems Satoshi was not willing to understand others opinions in the thread above. That is where I drew my title from.

Since I never met Satoshi in person and never talked to him, I can't judge if Satoshi was liberal or not, I don't know if he really didn't care or wasn't willing to hear others' opinions, but I do know that he disappeared since he wanted bitcoin to become a decentralized project with no single individuals powerful enough to decide what bitcoin should look like. He came up with the idea and the design, wrote the code, whitepaper, presented all that to like-minded people who were able to understand what he had done, supported his invention for some time, and then retired once realized that his stay was only harmful to the project. I think he was willing to hear other opinions while the community was small and weak, but the moment it has grown to a certain extent and attracted many talented people, he left.

[hatshepsut93]

Oxford dictionary says Liberal is "the willingness to understand and respect other people's opinions, especially when it differs from yours".
That I why I used the word. Because it seems Satoshi was not willing to understand others opinions in the thread above. That is where I drew my title from.

Why do you think that Satoshi didn't understand or respect Garzik's opinion? Read the next posts.

It's clear that Satoshi didn't want to create a hard fork out of the blue and wanted to make a smooth transition that would let all users enough time to upgrade. It's a much better idea than the one proposed by Garzik. Rejecting some idea because you have a better one is not anti-liberal, especially in a technical field.

[famososMuertos]

Liberal...like no one had set it up before! it is easy to put the transactions with a size of 1 mb in a block every 10 minutes, the idea is shaped, the protocol is born, it is his... although he knows that his destiny is to give him up for adoption, it was certainly not easy. Consequently we will have a divergence of opinions, that in this case is governed by consensus.

Liberal in my context does not even come close to the political, religious plane but rather guides me to other senses... but look where the OP clarifies it. Ty

[leea-1334]

And today just as it was a week and a month ago, with 1 satoshi fee,,, I believe there is still no reason to increase block. I still see every time mempool is below 5000 transactions, of course when block delays are happening everything bunches together,,, but block size increase does not fix this anyway.

I do not know if any of this constitutes for liberal trends or not?

[uchegod-21]

I'd like to think that one of the reasons why Satoshi went away was so that people stop focusing on what he thinks about bitcoin. You see, bitcoin is a decentralized currency that doesn't have one centralized authority deciding what opinion matters and what doesn't. The whole network does.

This is very true. His influence was greater and that was why they needed his permission to effect the changes. His disappearance has done so good for bitcoin.

[Hydrogen]

My question:

• What did you think made Satoshi keep the block at 1mb and did not consider to change it?

Many 1 megabyte blocks were filled to only 25% or less capacity.

Partially filled blocks was the real culprit behind lag in transaction volume.

[uchegod-21]

My question:

• What did you think made Satoshi keep the block at 1mb and did not consider to change it?

Many 1 megabyte blocks were filled to only 25% or less capacity.

Partially filled blocks was the real culprit behind lag in transaction volume.

Please what do you mean here. You mean that many 1 megabyte blocks were filled to only 25% before the block is solved?

If what I say above is what you mean, how does it lag transaction.