Is there some central aggregation point of ~everything (or in that spirit) that SN wrote, across all the various forums and such? I feel like I finally need to dig in and read all of that.
Satoshi proposed 1MB blocks in 2010 as an anti-spam mechanism. He was not against raising it, but it had to be done sensibly. RV and Bitcoin.com forced a non-sensible fork and fell off a cliff.
Everyone DYOR. It is indisputable that Satoshi wanted big blocks. Here are a couple quotes:
The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost.
https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/mike-hearn/1/
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.
https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/cryptography/...
I find it interesting that these are missing in the Nakamoto Institute's quotes on scaling.
I tend to think it’s too easy to cherry-pick SN quotes to make compelling logical cases on SN implying large or small blocks. I don’t think he ever gave a really strong statement on it, in the style the discussion now needs to close it out. As such, he’s not a great source.
I can pick something like this: /the more smaller farms resort to generating bitcoins, the higher the bar gets to overpower the network, making larger farms also too small to overpower it so that they may as well generate bitcoins too./
SN is arguing here, it seems, that the security model holds by enough small farmers, who he equates earlier to recreational users, being able to mine too.
That quote, and your quote, feel fairly at odds with each other! Miners can worry about the block size, they’ll be the super computers with TBs to spare v we need small users to participate in mining too as a key part of the security model, small users won’t have TBd to spare. If we can leave out how this steers into asics, do you note that contrast.
Here's a source directly from Mike Hearn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#ms...
You do not speak for the bitcoin community on who is and is not speaking for bitcoin.
BCH is not Roger Ver. BCH is all of the old school Bitcoiners who still believe Bitcoin can scale like Satoshi intended. And they're a hell of a lot less toxic to interact with.
There will be another weighting change with taproot, which further scales the network by preventing the need to broadcast tx's containing the full script output. This in turn introduces additional privacy in indistinguishably of script outputs.
Its not too late to preserve your money. Ignore the fork noise, and keep stacking (real) sats.
It's the unfortunate and poorly informed post 2017 split BTC adherents who have no idea what's going on. I watched the entire thing unfold first hand and the BCH camp simply has it correct. The fact that the market is largely completely ignorant of this is one of the most glaring indications of just how irrational it presently is.
Until BTC dies, the entire cryptosphere is little more than a joke. Witness the tone very technically proficient but not "in the cult" people like George Hotz have when they're discussing the block size debate; there's no doubt whatsoever that core is utterly wrong, to the point that any suggestion to the contrary is nothing more than a joke. Deep link to the exact part in a recent interview he addresses this https://youtu.be/_L3gNaAVjQ4?t=2635
The situation is utterly absurd, and watching it unfold first hand over the last decade has been completely maddening. It is zero wonder at all that everybody subjected to that spectacle is not in good humour about having watched it transpire and the only way people can be surprised by that state is a lack of familiarity with the facts of the matter.
I understand the argument that Blockstream has some bias, but it seems like there may be bias on the BCH side as well. If that's not the case, could you explain that in more detail?
In terms of bias on the BCH side, you could argue that because of conditions after the split they've had to take some hits and make rough decisions in a rocky landscape, but even those I think you'd be hard pressed to really disagree with in light of what the options were at the time. When it comes to pre-fork though no; it's simply unequivocally the case that they were right all along. They were outright censored on the main forums from making the very simple points of both technical and historical fact in support of the position that the goal was always to scale on chain and the math works just fine for it, and even having actually executed that and pushed the BCH network to 256mb blocks on scalenet already, the cultists over on BTC just ignore this and pretend like their position has any more merit than it ever did, constructing progressively more idiotic justifications as time goes by and it becomes clear that their narrative of it being impossible to grow a chain faster than a fax machine is exactly what everybody who knew what the underlying numbers were knew it to be to begin with.
BCH may not be Roger Ver, but the main reason I don't currently hold BCH is because of Roger Ver. If he wasn't in the picture I would be much more apt to hold BCH. He comes across as very reactive. What's wrong with calling BCH bcash? Does he really need to blow up anytime someone calls it that?