Is the problem with larger blocks the fact that Satoshi opposes them?

[Matthew Light]

It's not very hard to figure out who Satoshi really is. I suspect that most of the people heavily involved in Bitcoin who like to solve puzzles have already figured it out.

Is the real reason that we are having so much trouble getting larger blocks the fact that the real person behind the Satoshi pseudonym is currently very worried about increasing the block size, and that many of the people involved with Core also have figured out who Satoshi is and hold his opinion in too high a regard to consider going against it? That might explain the almost-religious zealotry we see from people like Theymos.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Do you mean you have figured it out, or just that it shouldn't be that hard?

 

[YarkoL]

I see two reasons mainly

1. legitimate worry that big blocks cause reduction
in number of non-miner node operators. This was the
prime reason that I was mildly supportive of Core before
BU
2. Lock-in with Blockstream, which I do not approve, although
I understand the reasons. Devs gotta eat too.

ps. Satoshi == Adam Back? I don't buy that.

 

[Matthew Light]

Do you mean you have figured it out

Yes.

or just that it shouldn't be that hard?

It isn't that hard.
[doublepost=1452516744][/doublepost]

ps. Satoshi == Adam Back? I don't buy that.

It's not Adam Back.

 

[seweso]

If you say things like this then what you are actually saying is that you don't believe them when they explain their reservations against doing an increase.

It is a lot more likely that they actually believe in what they say.

 

[_mr_e]

Your not still talking about Szabo are you?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I very much doubt it's Szabo. Matthew, how can you be sure? Writing style?

 

[Matthew Light]

Your not still talking about Szabo are you?

"Still talking"? When have I ever talked about Szabo?

[doublepost=1452522389][/doublepost]

If you say things like this then what you are actually saying is that you don't believe them when they explain their reservations against doing an increase.

No, that's not true.

I do believe their stated reasons. But an added reason is that Satoshi is also very afraid of increasing the blocksize.

I happen to think they are all quite wrong - that in order to make Bitcoin safer we have to allow it to grow and become more important, not try to hide it away in obscurity.

 

[_mr_e]

Sorry I didn't mean you in particular. Bad choice of words I just don't think it is him.

 

[sickpig]

Do you mean you have figured it out, or just that it shouldn't be that hard?

Yes.

care to share? /joking

 

[Matthew Light]

I hold Satoshi in the highest degree of respect, and I think he deserves his privacy.

 

[sickpig]

we're are in violent agreement, then.

In addition to this, revealing his identity would be extremely dangerous.

p.s. just to restate the obvious: my request was joke rather than a serious thing.

 

[Matthew Light]

Yeah, I knew you were joking

 

[Aquent]

This thread is a bit surreal...

It is far too easy to claim some guy is satoshi, or insinuate it, or imply, etc.

The small blockers believe what they believe for a reason and it has nothing to do with some imagined satoshi. They think a decentralised system is impossible on paper, therefore it can't work on practice either. Problem is we have this working thing, so they justify it by the 1mb limit. Problem is it isn't very decentralised right now *because* of the 1mb limit, but they think it can only be as decentralised as it is *because* of the 1mb limit.

@Peter R made a nice distinction some time ago and Szabo wrote some article which hinted on it - this idea of trees and forests, of 100% and probability, etc.

Satoshi made his opinions clear some 7 years ago. Individual nodes, in my view, are an aberration. They ghost nodes which serve no purpose save for that 1 guy who runs it (who no one cares about) therefore that 1 guy should pay the market price for his useless node which only benefits himself. However, it is easy to instinctively understand this idea of everyone must run a node... even though it is very wrong, and a bit difficult to actually grasp the design of bitcoin...

Imagine every business considers a bitcoin node as necessary as say a website, or maybe just part of the infrastructure, such as electricity.

You can't imagine that world can you? Just as you couldn't imagine bitcoin. The dream of e-cash was declared dead before it became. Individuals like gmax even went on to create complex maths to prove it impossible. What made it possible is out of the box thinking which most people are unable to do. That's why we call those who can geniuses.

Equally we are now hearing scaling is impossible, or decentralised bitcoin without 1mb is impossible. Yet it is all laid out how it is possible. The extreme is 1-2k datacenters across the world. The more likely scenario is a node in every business for it would be as necessary as other infrastructure.

They don't believe it possible, but then the whole point of this experiment is to prove it possible.

 

[Matthew Light]

@Aquent,

I'm quite sure main-chain scaling is possible, all that is needed is something like BU to make it easier for all the network users to configure the nodes appropriately.

Re: Satoshi,

I think it is important for us to fully understand the motivations of the small-blockers if we want to get the community to understand why Bitcoin transaction volume must increase now. I did have one of them tell me a couple of weeks ago that Satoshi backs them up (by allusion and insinuation), and certainly the almost messianic fervor of someone like theymos does demand an explanation.

 

[chainstor]

'Satoshi' has nothing to do with those involved with restraining the block size debate. If that is what they are trying to insinuate, then it simply shows how childlike their thought process really is.
Its laughable.

 

[rezzme]

I hold Satoshi in the highest degree of respect, and I think he deserves his privacy.

Then what is the point of this clickbaity thread? Your argument is useless if you say, "I know who Satoshi is, he's against big blocks for reasons XYZ, and we should consider it."

"Satoshi's privacy is valuable and we should not consider his opinion."

If he wanted to speak, or could, he would. End of story. And since he isn't, then frankly it doesn't matter.

 

[Matthew Light]

Your argument is useless if you say, "I know who Satoshi is, he's against big blocks for reasons XYZ, and we should consider it."

What I said is - we should consider why the small-blockers are so zealous. Do I think they are right? No, I don't.

 

[Aquent]

As I said, it is far too easy to imply or insinuate or even believe someone is satoshi as we saw by the supercomputer guy and the dorian nakamoto saga.

Now the small blockers may hint this bitcoin-cobra guy is satoshi, but of course they are fully wrong and deceiving themselves or trying to deceive us. Cobra is a terrible nickname - contrast it with satoshi. The former insinuates darkness, the latter says subtlety.

Satoshi would not spend a second with these amateurs anyway. They have deluded themselves for so long by listening to Peter Todds constant scaremongering and character assassination attempts that they are now so out of touch as to risk suicide.

Many of them unfortunately are very good people and have simply been deceived. Even Jeff fell under their spell for quite some time. Therefore, our time is better serve in educating, bringing some light to darkness, lifting the deception, etc, rather than trying to understand their delusions.

 

[Matthew Light]

As I said, it is far too easy to imply or insinuate or even believe someone is satoshi as we saw by the supercomputer guy and the dorian nakamoto saga.

Yes, people who don't know how to investigate have thrown up ridiculous candidates for who Satoshi is. And of course silliness such as "Bitcoin Cobra" can be ignored.