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_controversyAdditionally, 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.