Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[macsga]

If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die.

Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up.

I think this is utterly wrong.

First of, the "Govt" NEVER supplied "free" services, the Insurance you've paid with your OWN money did. When the Banksters took your insurance money via "political decisions" to cover their margins from the infinite loan river they were running a couple of decades ago, this is not "saving your country's insurance system" this is plain, undeniable THEFT.

Second, the myth of "nationalizing" "private" debt. Never was, never is, never will be. This is THEFT! What happened here is happening all over the EU and (if Greece doesn't stop it) it will be the next canon in the whole world. Keep an eye how this evolves. Maybe it's your neighbour's house that's on fire...

Cheers.

[1713251842]

1713251842

[1713251842]

1713251842

[1713251842]

1713251842

[1713251842]

1713251842

[cypherdoc]

Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it?  Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.  Unless we fail and sully the potential for cryptocurrency in the public's mind, this is only the very beginning of a long history.

Just FWIW, if the current Blockstream cohort does this there is some chance that I would convert over via proof-of-burn on reasonable terms, and especially if the clowns cannot be run out of Bitcoin (which doesn't seem eminent.)  I'd want to see it backing sidechains and would want to see a modestly promising sidechains ecosystem in practice first.

... everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model  works and is crucial to outrunning regulation.

Pfft!  How's that working out for you after half a decade now?  Not well?  How very surprising that a solution which is vastly inferior to the competition in the exchange currency space cannot get a foothold.  Even with an amazing degree of media support, and even a surprising degree regulatory support here in the U.S. for that matter.

Edit:  BTW, what the fuck do you know about SV anyway?  'Outrunning regulation' was no more a winning strategy than 'security through obscurity'.  Sure, it can work fine...mostly when nobody gives a shit about you.

thanks for highlighting that pt.  it clearly shows that i am correct in assuming that gmax is a Bitcoin Bear.  but instead of working on improving Bitcoin proper, he wants to create SC's that shunt all value units out of the mainchain initially then all mining fees eventually.  the key to me that he subconsciously knows this is his objections to raising beyond 1MB which would kill his for profit project.

the mere fact that you would "consider" migrating your BTC over to a superior SC makes my pt even further.  that would destroy all of us who have value stored away in cold wallets.  the exchange rates on which chain  appeared to be headed for obsolescence (MC vs SC) would be sold off en masse and along with it, mining hashrate would wither, thus making your ability to migrate through the 2wp close to impossible as your coins have to be mined into a tx proof with enough POW to be valid.

and as for your assertion that Bitcoin is not doing well after 6y?  are you kidding me?  it's doing great.  with Ripple Bank out of the way, with Ethereum appearing to have run out of money, all that is left is for Bitcoin to shed this Blockstream SC 1MB noose around our neck for it to take off to the races.

[cypherdoc]

If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die.

Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up.

I think this is utterly wrong.

First of, the "Govt" NEVER supplied "free" services, the Insurance you've paid with your OWN money did. When the Banksters took your insurance money via "political decisions" to cover their margins from the infinite loan river they were running a couple of decades ago, this is not "saving your country's insurance system" this is plain, undeniable THEFT.

Second, the myth of "nationalizing" "private" debt. Never was, never is, never will be. This is THEFT! What happened here is happening all over the EU and (if Greece doesn't stop it) it will be the next canon in the whole world. Keep an eye how this evolves. Maybe it's your neighbour's house that's on fire...

Cheers.

which is why i find Blythe Master's recent involvement in Bitcoin to be extremely bullish.  this is the lady who created the CDS which was a big part of the 2008 crisis and probably any future crisis. she understand money and especially how to exploit it.  if she fails to see any exploit in Bitcoin, what does that say for it's future?  i suppose there is a possibility that she thinks she sees an exploit, which may explain her talking about "blockchain" as opposed to "bitcoin".  but that would be ok too, as long as she is bullish on Bitcoin, which she is.  if she is bullish on Bitcoin, i fail to see how anyone else could not be. 

back to the part about houses on fire.  Warren Buffett described CDS as WMD.  i love his example of how if someone else is allowed to buy an insurance on your house, he has a significant motivation to drop a few matches around your house.  if Blockstream has an insurance policy/investment in SC tech, maybe they'd be more likely to drop a few matches around the MC in the form of a 1MB choke point?

[TPTB_need_war]

Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it?  Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.

I doubt we will have to wait that long. I believe I am in possession of a significant component of that formula now. Fortunately because of pegged side chains even (if only via federated servers), this formula should be coming to all those who HODL BTC.

Cypherdoc, you are a fool for fighting futility against[1] what is going to save your BTC a$$ BTCutt this year.

Gregory, this block size debate is really just noise and it will be subsumed soon no matter the outcome. Therefor my suggestion is just let them bang their pots and pans together (they must be Italian, lol) and carry on with your important work please.

Also there are bigger picture network effects that have a more high level relevance to decentralization ecosystems.

I haven't fully digested the Blockstream whitepaper. Would you or anyone be so kind as to clarify how pegged side chains won't be prone to fractional reserve debasement:

...

Assuming debasement of BTC can be cryptographically prevented (but I can't fathom how that can be possible in a decentralized context   ... however I haven't yet entirely digested the Blockstream whitepaper), then I don't see how you justify your claim that Bitcoin might end up supporting altcoins?

(actually I see another way, and it appears to be a win-win paradigm for all involved)

Are users going to be expected to trust peer review of the open source of each side chain to know whether the side chain debases its pegged monetary unit?


[1] Or unwittingly conflating your irrelevant fight for block size increase when you ad hominem the devs of the pegged side chains tech you will de$BTCerately need to deal with a black swan.

for the thousandth time, 1MB was a temporary patch to counteract DoS on the network when it was small and vulnerable.  today is quite different, which goes to your pt that things have evolved for Bitcoin to easily remove that artificial limit to allow for the inevitable growth that will come in the next spike.  cramping it at 1MB, which was never meant to happen, is the height of hypocrisy. many, many ppl including in the technical community that i see here and on reddit feel that the limit should be raised.  everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model  works and is crucial to outrunning regulation.  your small block theory is the epitome of centralization forcing all users off the mainchain and into offchain solutions, some more centralized and regulated than others.

This argument even exists because either direction on the block side decision is flawed, that is if we only are stuck with the current PoW algorithm.

But pegged side chains enable the ability to transfer BTC value to new consensus algorithms (and not just variants of PoS) that paradigm shift out of the mutual annihilation scenario.

[justusranvier]

If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die.

Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up.

I think this is utterly wrong.

First of, the "Govt" NEVER supplied "free" services, the Insurance you've paid with your OWN money did. When the Banksters took your insurance money via "political decisions" to cover their margins from the infinite loan river they were running a couple of decades ago, this is not "saving your country's insurance system" this is plain, undeniable THEFT.

Second, the myth of "nationalizing" "private" debt. Never was, never is, never will be. This is THEFT! What happened here is happening all over the EU and (if Greece doesn't stop it) it will be the next canon in the whole world. Keep an eye how this evolves. Maybe it's your neighbour's house that's on fire...

Cheers.

There never was any insurance, it was theft from the beginning

[rocks]

lots and lots of big words.  never any justification for preventing Bitcoin from fulfilling it's original vision:

Your selective quoting ignores how this was a response to a 'how could this possibly work at all'.  I've used the same kind of response to "omg flooding network! how could that possibly work! it's completely non-scalable!" -- to point out that even non-scalable can achieve some remarkable stuff.  This doesn't answer any particular question about the exact tradeoff that works, but works to wake people up.  Particular because before Bitcoin the alternative was exclusively centralized systems so when you show that if you don't care about decentralization (which you must not if you question the value it provides compared to all that came before) then it can reach arbitrarily high scale.

We can't hope to guess at what anyone from back then would think about the current state of the world, though we do know that e.g. the current mining ecosystem would have been regarded as a system failure from the original precepts; and we also know that decentralization and autonomy were principle motivations for the creation of the system in the first place.

While I'm here, hows your Bitcoin Spinoffs project going, Cypherdoc?

One, how is modern mining (i.e. stratum miners connected to large pools) in any manner affected by blocksize? You have claimed multiple times that 20MB blocks will negatively impact mining decentralization, but then ignore all counter arguments outlining how that position is baseless.

Two, how is the current mining & node ecosystem a failure? Satoshi clearly thought there would be centralization over time, it's not clear that today's environment of a small number of full trustless participants (full nodes and pools) and a large number of individual trusting users (SPV users and stratum miners) differs from the centralization Satoshi said should happen over time.

[rocks]

If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die.

Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up.

This is one of the many reason societies that emphasize hard work, self reliance, self sufficiency and individualism continue to succeed over those that don't. Just imagine the suffering that would happen in the US if suddenly the government could no longer provide unlimited food stamps, section 9 housing, welfare, disability, etc. None of these things existed 100 years ago in the US, yet the US still had the highest standard of living at the time. These programs simply build dependency, and no one who promotes them ever stops to think about what will happen when they eventually become unsustainable.

[TPTB_need_war]

it's not clear that today's environment of a small number of full trustless participants (full nodes and pools)

You've consistently stated incorrect technical conclusions upthread which I have corrected. I won't even bother to unravel your convoluted errors on this one...

I suppose that is why this thread does not exist in "Development & Technical Discussion" because it would be moderated so heavily because most of what is written in this thread is technical nonsense.

If your argument is not (unwittingly?) intended to obfuscate that you want a centralized Bitcoin that is controlled by vested interests, then just state it rather than attempting to hide behind your lack of appreciation of all the technical and economic issues, such as but not limited to out-of-band incentives (game theory) which invalidate the Nash equilibrium and the notion of "trustless" centralized full nodes and pools.

If you are intending to couch behind the "it's not clear" meaning you have have no point, then please admit it rather than use your uncertainty as an argument for one side of the debate.

[tvbcof]

Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it?  Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.  Unless we fail and sully the potential for cryptocurrency in the public's mind, this is only the very beginning of a long history.

Just FWIW, if the current Blockstream cohort does this there is some chance that I would convert over via proof-of-burn on reasonable terms, and especially if the clowns cannot be run out of Bitcoin (which doesn't seem eminent.)  I'd want to see it backing sidechains and would want to see a modestly promising sidechains ecosystem in practice first.

... everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model  works and is crucial to outrunning regulation.

Pfft!  How's that working out for you after half a decade now?  Not well?  How very surprising that a solution which is vastly inferior to the competition in the exchange currency space cannot get a foothold.  Even with an amazing degree of media support, and even a surprising degree regulatory support here in the U.S. for that matter.

Edit:  BTW, what the fuck do you know about SV anyway?  'Outrunning regulation' was no more a winning strategy than 'security through obscurity'.  Sure, it can work fine...mostly when nobody gives a shit about you.

thanks for highlighting that pt.  it clearly shows that i am correct in assuming that gmax is a Bitcoin Bear.  but instead of working on improving Bitcoin proper, he wants to create SC's that shunt all value units out of the mainchain initially then all mining fees eventually.  the key to me that he subconsciously knows this is his objections to raising beyond 1MB which would kill his for profit project.

Looks to my like Maxwell and the Blockstream guys are fighting a rear-guard battle to keep Bitcoin relevant in spite of both severe deficiencies which are evident after half a decade of practice and after significant internal attacks by quasi-devs.  Bitcoin functioning in a role which hides it's deficiencies and allows it to leverage it's strengths is the best way to achieve this IMO.  That is exactly what Blockstream is doing as I see it.

I might add that you never seem to miss an opportunity to try to put words in Maxwell's mouth.  He didn't indicate that he wanted to see a superior system develop but rather that it is possible.  It's ME who is saying that I may well be interested in both seeing it happen and to see Blockstream do it.  If nothing else it would be outstanding insurance against scumbags like Hearn.

the mere fact that you would "consider" migrating your BTC over to a superior SC makes my pt even further.  that would destroy all of us who have value stored away in cold wallets.  the exchange rates on which chain  appeared to be headed for obsolescence (MC vs SC) would be sold off en masse and along with it, mining hashrate would wither, thus making your ability to migrate through the 2wp close to impossible as your coins have to be mined into a tx proof with enough POW to be valid.

Slight correction:  I'm not talking about migrating an 'SC'.  I'll use SC's no matter what.  I'm talking about migrating to a different reserve currency if you guys manage to torpedo Bitcoin.  It's mostly that I'm not going to follow the herd off the cliff.  It's not my nature.  Beyond that, no, I'm not married to Bitcoin or any particular implementation thereof.  I've got general ideas about what I want distributed crypto-currencies to achieve and they are more critical to me than any particular implementation.

I see Blockstream as a unique point in time when an unusual bubble of participants who I have some confidence in has developed.  Although my confidence in them is not where I would ideally like it to be, there will probably never be another time when I can have the same degree of confidence in a particular group.  Nor will there probably be a situation where the scumbag contingent is so evident and prone to trigger an opportunity like the XT fork.

and as for your assertion that Bitcoin is not doing well after 6y?  are you kidding me?  it's doing great.  with Ripple Bank out of the way, with Ethereum appearing to have run out of money, all that is left is for Bitcoin to shed this Blockstream SC 1MB noose around our neck for it to take off to the races.

Bitcoin has remained viable on the back of subsidization as much as any, but it's got first-mover advantage which has allowed it to survive better than most.  I'm not willing to bet my stash on the hope that the VC pockets never run dry.  I've put some of their money in my pocket already and don't expect that they'll welcome an indefinite repeat of this process.

[cypherdoc]

Mike Hearn's infallible logic:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34206292/

bottomline is you skeptics can disrespect him all day long but the smart among us will listen and think about the content of what he says.

[rocks]

it's not clear that today's environment of a small number of full trustless participants (full nodes and pools)

You've consistently stated incorrect technical conclusions upthread which I have corrected. I won't even bother to unravel your convoluted errors on this one...

I suppose that is why this thread does not exist in "Development & Technical Discussion" because it would be moderated so heavily because most of what is written in this thread is technical nonsense.

If your argument is not (unwittingly?) intended to obfuscate that you want a centralized Bitcoin that is controlled by vested interests, then just state it rather than attempting to hide behind your lack of appreciation of all the technical and economic issues, such as but not limited to out-of-band incentives (game theory) which invalidate the Nash equilibrium and the notion of "trustless" centralized full nodes and pools.

If you are intending to couch behind the "it's not clear" meaning you have have no point, then please admit it rather than use your uncertainty as an argument for one side of the debate.

TPTB's incoherent rantings always remind me of the Sokal Hoax. For those not familiar a well known Physicist submitted a paper to well known journal that was purposely written as a mix of logical fallacies, inconsistencies and just random psycho babble. The paper was accepted and he even presented it to a conference of tenured humanities professors, who at first were nodding in intellectual agreement before it he had to dial up the crazy to the point that everyone got the joke. It demonstrated how a lot of supposidly smart people like to string together complex nonsense that says nothing simply to make them feel smart.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair#Content_of_the_article
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Read the paper for fun. Now tell me that it doesn't sound a lot like TPTB's rantings.

Oh, and TPTB, the reason I haven't replied to you before is because you are the one and only ignore I have. Just took it off (temporarily) to see if I should change that. Still see there is nothing to respond to. Your posts are nothing but personal attacks that do not even attempt to say anything factual, just put downs and statements about how your right because you are smarter than everyone else.

[TPTB_need_war]

i've always said that when it comes down to federated server pegged SC's, go right ahead.  it doesn't change the protocol so i don't worry.

It can be the leverage that causes the protocol to effectively change by replacement of Core. A pegged side chain that is undeniably superior to Bitcoin Core could suck all the BTC out of Core and that pegged side chain could have the spvp implemented. That isn't a guarantee of it happening, but from my perspective the odds are quite high. One of the attributes that raises the odds of such is the resistance to changing the protocol of Core. Thus any undeniably superior tech is unlikely to be politically implementable in Core.

I repeat that a consensus algorithm which can't be 50% attacked has an even better odds of catapulting Core, because it won't be vulnerable in its infancy.

This journey has been like playing a strategy game. I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

TPTB's incoherent rantings always remind me of the Sokal Hoax.

It is by design above your comprehension level; thus it appears to you to be noise. I'd prefer to appear to be a crackpot to n00bs at this juncture and sage to those with relevant experience and intellect.

For example, the notion of an existential type is I am sure completely incomprehensible to you.

just put downs and statements about how your right because you are smarter than everyone else.

I've corrected you technically several times already upthread. And I did actually point out of one aspect of your technical myopia in my latest rebuttal of you. That you can't detect the technical logic therein is indicative of your inability to comprehend that which is above your level of technical expertise.

T-existing-PTB

I did manage to cause conflation of the use of that term, lol.

[tvbcof]

Mike Hearn's infallible logic:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34206292/

bottomline is you skeptics can disrespect him all day long but the smart among us will listen and think about the content of what he says.

Personally, I'm allergic to 'infallible' beings.  I'm allergic to Mr. Hearn for a lot more reasons than just that however.

I have to agree that Hearn is quite smart.  He foresaw the consolidation of infrastructure long before anyone else and foresaw the opportunities that it could provide for the T-existing-PTB.  And he's worked tirelessly for half a decade to bring this scenario to fruition and set up to help his friends exploit it.

[Adrian-x]

If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die.

Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up.

I think this is utterly wrong.

First of, the "Govt" NEVER supplied "free" services, the Insurance you've paid with your OWN money did. When the Banksters took your insurance money via "political decisions" to cover their margins from the infinite loan river they were running a couple of decades ago, this is not "saving your country's insurance system" this is plain, undeniable THEFT.

Second, the myth of "nationalizing" "private" debt. Never was, never is, never will be. This is THEFT! What happened here is happening all over the EU and (if Greece doesn't stop it) it will be the next canon in the whole world. Keep an eye how this evolves. Maybe it's your neighbour's house that's on fire...

Cheers.

There never was any insurance, it was theft from the beginning

there is insurance, when people collectively decide to contribute to a community's well being in addition to the individuals, I'd say it's more likely to happen with in a global blockchain system than it was ever as a set of kleptocratic government institutions. In South Africa we pay people to watch our cars because if we don't they will break in to see if there is anything of value, that is the free market system at work it's called symbiosis, is works the same way as insurance it not theft like you think it's theft, to believe it is theft is to believe it is a right to be born with more assess to resources than you competition, what makes it theft is using an inflating money supply.

[elux]

RFC: #Bitcoin core BIP 100 draft, v0.8.1:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf …
Changes:  32MB explicit cap (versus implicit), tighten language

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/610494283334860800

[TPTB_need_war]

the reason SC's won't work is b/c none of them are going to want to hitch their futures to Blockstream that has shown they will do what's best for themselves and not Bitcoin.

I see it potentially playing out a different way due to my inside knowledge of that black swan formula which Gregory suspects might come one day. An altcoin comes along that beats Bitcoin core in terms of decentralization, scaling, and TPS (and other attributes).

The reverse leveraged wealth effect will snowball because Core can't add these changes (they are far too invasive because they destroy the profit of mining...goodbye 21 Inc!).

Thus without pegged side chains your BTC is toast. I think you better start being more nice to Blockstream.  

[TPTB_need_war]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Very good chance at that happening.

I guess the chance is more than good

Do you really assert there are not very powerful vested interests against stronger anonymity? They are likely lurking and haven't displayed their power yet (if historic norms are not to suddenly cease...yeah I know it is different this time...it always is until it isn't).

I think you are delusional. Just try it.

[cypherdoc]

RFC: #Bitcoin core BIP 100 draft, v0.8.1:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf …
Changes:  32MB explicit cap (versus implicit), tighten language

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/610494283334860800

is voting confined to miners?

Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g.
“/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top
20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

[Melbustus]

...
We can't hope to guess at what anyone from back then would think about the current state of the world, though we do know that e.g. the current mining ecosystem would have been regarded as a system failure from the original precepts; and we also know that decentralization and autonomy were principle motivations for the creation of the system in the first place.
...

Perhaps you're forgetting the below, but we do have a number of Satoshi quotes that are relevant to today's discussion:

Right.  Otherwise we couldn't have a finite limit of 21 million coins, because there would always need to be some minimum reward for generating.  In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes.  I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

(emphasis added)

...
While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

(emphasis added)

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.html
(emphasis added)

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I read these in aggregate to indicate that Satoshi thought Bitcoin should eventually support a high number of transactions (even very low "micro" transactions), and that consolidation of network resources (nodes and miners) was both inevitable and workable in order to achieve that *primary* goal of high-adoption rate and a large number of on-chain transactions.

I'm not saying with any absolute that Satoshi was right (though I tend to think he was), but if we're going to be discussing "original precepts", let's look at the relevant statements.

[TPTB_need_war]

...
While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

(emphasis added)

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.html
(emphasis added)

I had used those quotes in 2013 to back my argument that Bitcoin was designed to be centralized.

And now that I have figured out the correct way to design crypto-currency so that it won't be centralized, it has become even more clear to me that Satoshi was not designing this for our benefit (unless he was planting the bad design as a Trojan horse on itself, perhaps because he was working for the DEEP STATE and knew that it was better he plant it a certain way than allow the DEEP STATE to realize a different design).

Just because Satoshi saw the inevitability of the centralization (and given we know the implication of centralization and out-of-band game theory w.r.t. vested interests) doesn't mean that we must accept that outcome. We have the technical ability to do pegged side chains and eloquently fork our way out of this mess I call BTCuttcon.