This is why Satoshi needed to go away. We can't have people looking to him to make decisions and him being left to be persuaded to agree to changes. Bitcoin needs to be lead by consensus around proposals made by people who are not able to make authoritative statements about subjective preferences.
I agree with this. Just look at how Satoshi is idolized and even seen in a quasi-religious light. It would be dangerous for him to have excessive influence on consensus proposals. I really do think that Satoshi was a shitcoiner for these reasons: Namecoin, big blocks, and instant settlement of unconfirmed transactions.
There was only bitcoin when satoshi was online, proposing or discussing the possibility of a bigger blocksize doesn't mean he was a shitcoiner Sage thread
I used to wonder why BCH/BSV shitcoiners are so dead-set on their unconfirmed transactions being good enough for a merchant to accept. It looks like the idea started with Satoshi himself.
I find this baffling because the whitepaper is very clear that a transaction needs to be in a block before it is final, and finality is probabalistic, with more blocks on top of the block containing that transaction increasing the likelihood of its finality.
Another issue is that there is no way for consensus rules to prevent a miner from putting double spend transactions in a block because consensus is only built around the state of the blockchain, not the state of the mempool. It's like he's trying to come up with a pre-consensus consensus.
This is why Satoshi needed to go away. We can't have people looking to him to make decisions and him being left to be persuaded to agree to changes. Bitcoin needs to be lead by consensus around proposals made by people who are not able to make authoritative statements about subjective preferences.
I agree with this. Just look at how Satoshi is idolized and even seen in a quasi-religious light. It would be dangerous for him to have excessive influence on consensus proposals. I really do think that Satoshi was a shitcoiner for these reasons: Namecoin, big blocks, and instant settlement of unconfirmed transactions.
OMG, the intelligence level of questions here is going down every time shitcoiners are "invading" spaces...
There was only bitcoin when satoshi was online, proposing or discussing the possibility of a bigger blocksize doesn't mean he was a shitcoiner
Sage thread
You can read here where he's involved in a discussion about a hypothetical Bitcoin snack machine: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
I used to wonder why BCH/BSV shitcoiners are so dead-set on their unconfirmed transactions being good enough for a merchant to accept. It looks like the idea started with Satoshi himself.
I find this baffling because the whitepaper is very clear that a transaction needs to be in a block before it is final, and finality is probabalistic, with more blocks on top of the block containing that transaction increasing the likelihood of its finality.
Another issue is that there is no way for consensus rules to prevent a miner from putting double spend transactions in a block because consensus is only built around the state of the blockchain, not the state of the mempool. It's like he's trying to come up with a pre-consensus consensus.