[nivexous]

Bitcoin.com has the Satoshi Archive (https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/) with all his emails and forum posts. Satoshi wanted big blocks, and so BTC largely ignores him or says "We are all satoshi", but there is a ton of wisdom if you go back and read. This was put together by Derek Magill, who is also a good person to follow on Twitter.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

Warning, bitcoin.com is non-authoritative on bitcoin. They went a little mad a few years ago with the big block agenda. They do not speak for bitcoin, and want to push their big block bcash fork.

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.

[uncletammy]

Roger Ver had nothing to do with the BCH fork. In fact, he was many months late in showing any public support for it. He was dead silent until it started to look like the core devs were going to reneg on their agreement to support 2mb blocks in exchange for passing Segwit. And as expected, they did reneg on that, immediately after they got what they wanted.

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.

[swensel]

I think the us vs them mentality is what is toxic, and I see that on both sides of the Bitcoin scaling discussion.

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?

[rfd4sgmk8u]

I beg to disagree. No oldschool bitcoiner I know (including myself) takes bcash seriously. I would request that you to name any technical public figure that supports bcash. All that is left in this community is new suckers, and antibitcoin non-technical folks. Segwit DID change in blocksize weighting, with a fee incentive model to use segwit. These false antiblockstream tropes should have died out in 2018, but bcashers keep bringing them up, as they lack the technical nuance to understand how the system works.

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.

[etherael]

Congratulations, you made me come out of retirement purely to disagree with you. No chain more richly deserves death than BTC and BCH is one of the best chains in existence. I'm prepared to sign this message with a Bitcoin key from 2011 if you doubt the fact I've been active that long.

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

[swensel]

I would like to support BCH but everyone I talk to who supports Bitcoin Cash comes across as so divisive on this matter. BTC obviously has an important place in the crypto ecosystem. To discount the price growth of BTC and its importance in the overall awareness of crypto to the public seems short sighted. Price does matter. All of these coins can exist.

[etherael]

They sound divisive on the matter because for over a decade now they've fruitlessly tried to explain the abject idiocy of backing a takeover attempt by a party whose business model is directly focused around constraining on chain capacity to a uselessly low rate, the lower the better, and the uselessly low rate this attack has managed to constrain it to is barely higher than the throughput of a fax machine. Let that sink in; it's 2021 and gigabit internet in developing countries is not that big a deal for context. Fax machines haven't been "fast" since I was a kid and my hair is white now.

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.

[nivexous]

Mike Hearn, Gavin Andreson, Roger Ver, and countless names I interact with on a regular basis support big blocks and were involved since the beginning. Folks, this what BTC does. Eventually the lies runs out.

[nivexous]

"Non-authoritative" ... this is why BTC people just suck to talk to.

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.

[dogman144]

I hear ya. The view is that by references to a large network, split bt SPV and miner nodes, the miner nodes can run expanding blocks and the Rec users just hold block headers, more or less. That implies bigger blocks can occur, will occur at scale, and the miner can roll with it, users are still able to verify, and SN saw nothing wrong with that. Similar evidence as yours exists elsewhere.

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.

[nivexous]

There's no problem - the word farm is being used differently in different contexts. In the quote you posted, farm is in reference to hashpower. You can have many smaller miners (zombie farms, in your quote) that know nothing about the transactions they are mining. That is how mining pools work today. All that is required is one big central node that can validate the transactions and build the block, which is what my quote was referencing with farm.

[dogman144]

I don’t think mining pools were what SN had in mind with that quote, although the solution you note fits smaller miners contributing hashpower, and not needing to store a big block.

[uncletammy]

> I find it interesting that these are missing in the Nakamoto Institute's quotes on scaling.

Here's a source directly from Mike Hearn

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#ms...

[toomim]

Warning: nobody is authoritative on bitcoin.

You do not speak for the bitcoin community on who is and is not speaking for bitcoin.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

Sure, but the network consensus does speak for bitcoin, and it overwhelmingly rejects bcash, bsv and the many other 'false profits'. Count the nodes. Count the hashrate. Count the accumulated work in the chain. Bcash offers simple (broken) solutions to hard problems. Pushing it over BTC is just technical ignorance.

[dogman144]

Yeah that’s hard to miss. Hashrate plays out.