5 ms·

In one of his last messages in 2010 before going publically inactive, Bitcoin's creator wrote: > Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting

by nullc 7y ago

In one of his last messages in 2010 before going publically inactive, Bitcoin's creator wrote: > Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289... ) Hal Finney, one of the main developers of PGP and Bitcoin's first user wrote in 2010: > 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. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg342... ) That sort of view was well known and understood by others in early 2011 when (now former) Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen had recently started he wrote of the future: > I bet there will be alternative, secure-and-trusted, very-high-speed network connections between major bitcoin transaction processors. Maybe it will just be bitcoin transactions flying across the existing Visa/MasterCard/etc networks (I have no idea what their transaction clearing/processing networks look like or how they work). ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118.msg44789#msg44789 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118.msg44789#msg447... ) Or, look at other discussions early in Bitcoin's life-- and instead of quoting myself from back then, I'll show that these views were broadly understood: > 2010-12-09 02:14:28 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: that seems like a bad idea; I have a niggling feeling in the back of my head that the optimal bitcoin-like system would have even smaller blocks/transactions than current bitcoin.... ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2010-12-09.html#l-345 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2010-12-09.html#... ) > 2011-07-15 03:32:13 <moa7> actually the more it shakes out the more bitcoin is looking like a settlement clearing system like interbank market e.g. > 2011-07-15 03:41:46 <jgarzik> moa7: RE "settlement clearing system" <<-- EXACTLY > 2011-07-15 03:42:22 <jgarzik> moa7: it is presumed by many that a future bitcoin (if successful) will involve a secondary layer that can handle higher volumes, microtransactions, etc. ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2011-07-15.html#l-350 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2011-07-15.html#... ) 2012-04-13 17:56:22 <jgarzik> IMO I think the current bitcoin's endgame is as a not-high-volume settlement network. ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-04-13.html#l-851 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-04-13.html#... ) Or, > 2012-09-09 20:00:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I am against changing block size, FWIW. I think the market will properly intervene, bitcoin will reach a steady state where all blocks are 1MB, and the best bidding gets block placement. SatoshiDICE and other data apps automatically solve themselves, once 1MB is normal. > 2012-09-09 20:00:48 <jgarzik> I think I will be overruled, but that is my position. > 2012-09-09 20:03:24 <jgarzik> bitcoin exists _because_ of certain constrained limits. money creation is one of them. block space is another. > 2012-09-09 20:03:35 <jgarzik> that is a fundamental constraint; messing with it massively changes the economics ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-09-09.html#l-679 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-09-09.html#... ) There are plenty of tough trade-offs in Bitcoin and reasonable people can have no end of a disagreement about them. But these discussions, mostly from before any credit card company ever heard of Bitcoin-- show that a nuanced understanding existed all along. Disagree if you like, but the conspiracy theories are an insult to everyone's intelligence borne out of a malicious and dishonest rewriting of Bitcoin's history pushed on by court decreed fraudsters like Craig Wright. You have plenty of alternatives-- if they're better then they should stand on their own without the abuse and deceptive FUD.

teh_infallible 7y ago
The counter argument to this is that the white paper refers to Bitcoin as “a peer to peer electronic cash system.” If high fees force users to centralized, custodial second layers, then it ceases to operate as peer to peer cash. It becomes Venmo.
- nullc 7y ago
  Bitcoin has decentralized non-custodial second layers. But if they didn't-- which would be sad-- your logic doesn't follow: Is the USD not cash because paypal exists and is widely used? Venmo is venmo. Venmo adoption Bitcoin as a currency on their platform would not turn Bitcoin into venmo. It would just create another option for using Bitcoin-- one with it's own positive and negative trade-offs. There is a balance. The system is not very valuable at the extremes of resource usage or limited capacity, like many other systems.
  - etherael 7y ago
    > Is the USD not cash because paypal exists and is widely used? It would be very easy to argue that it would not be if the present mechanics of the cash system were restricted to a maximum global throughput of 3 transactions a second. But no other monetary system would actually pursue such an asinine goal on purpose except as a means of sabotage. Which explains you.
- xorcist 7y ago
  It might be prudent to note that "cash" has meaning in the context of electronic payment research, going all the way back to DigiCash in the 90s. That system required a trusted third party to operate, but it was still cash in the sense that it is a transfer of value, not debt. The way most payment systems operate is that they are settled at a later date (in some cash equivalent). In that sense, credit card payments as well as Venmo are layer 2 solutions.
sunared 7y ago
> Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. He was talking about people like you. He didn't advocate for a centrally planned block limit. Stop trying to twist his words. Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik are well known big blockers so stop trying to imply otherwise. At least here I won't get censored by theymos like on r\bitcoin and bitcointalk.

by nullc 7y ago

teh_infallible 7y ago

The counter argument to this is that the white paper refers to Bitcoin as “a peer to peer electronic cash system.” If high fees force users to centralized, custodial second layers, then it ceases to operate as peer to peer cash. It becomes Venmo.

nullc 7y ago
Bitcoin has decentralized non-custodial second layers. But if they didn't-- which would be sad-- your logic doesn't follow: Is the USD not cash because paypal exists and is widely used? Venmo is venmo. Venmo adoption Bitcoin as a currency on their platform would not turn Bitcoin into venmo. It would just create another option for using Bitcoin-- one with it's own positive and negative trade-offs. There is a balance. The system is not very valuable at the extremes of resource usage or limited capacity, like many other systems.
- etherael 7y ago
  > Is the USD not cash because paypal exists and is widely used? It would be very easy to argue that it would not be if the present mechanics of the cash system were restricted to a maximum global throughput of 3 transactions a second. But no other monetary system would actually pursue such an asinine goal on purpose except as a means of sabotage. Which explains you.
xorcist 7y ago
It might be prudent to note that "cash" has meaning in the context of electronic payment research, going all the way back to DigiCash in the 90s. That system required a trusted third party to operate, but it was still cash in the sense that it is a transfer of value, not debt. The way most payment systems operate is that they are settled at a later date (in some cash equivalent). In that sense, credit card payments as well as Venmo are layer 2 solutions.

sunared 7y ago

> Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. He was talking about people like you. He didn't advocate for a centrally planned block limit. Stop trying to twist his words. Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik are well known big blockers so stop trying to imply otherwise. At least here I won't get censored by theymos like on r\bitcoin and bitcointalk.