nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk
From your point of view and experience; what is or would be the ugly things which Satoshi was referring to?
Satoshi: “This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.”
At his/her/their active pseudo-public time the original Bitcoin node was performing mining activities and the ugly things which I could think about would be chain-splits and chain reorganizations.
Nowadays regular Bitcoin nodes do not perform mining activities. So, what could be those ugly things that could happen with minority and majority numerical running node behavior versions?
nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk
Satoshi: “That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary.”
What would be the other things we could do? Were all the things we could do already implemented or thought?
nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk:
Did Satoshi ever answer following comment:
“
This is interesting, and is a possible way to embed messages inside anonymous payments, at the cost of transaction fees.
So if a payment contains a No-op string that says "Message encrypted for Public Key [xxx]: [yyyyy]" then that gets passed along to the destination? Or even "Cleartext message to recipient: [zzzzz]."
Of course the content of these messages - the [xxx] or [yyyyy] have nothing to do with Bitcoin, but they could be used as part of a layer on top of Bitcoin.
The reason I'm so interested in embedding messages is that they allow use of a "static" anonymity network like Freenet, rather than a "live" network like Tor or I2P. Live networks have exit nodes, a few of which can be compromised. If a government compromises 1% of all exit nodes, then they have a small chance of figuring out where a given site is hosted. So to use my Heroin Store example, they would send an N byte message to the store and watch all of their compromised exit nodes for N byte messages. They'd do this over a few hours, watching where N byte messages got sent to, eventually discovering the IP address of the store.
In a network like Freenet, data just floats around - there is no one machine where a website (for example) lives. You publish data to the cloud, and as long as people access it periodically, it stays around.
“
At that time the ones providing, with theirs nodes, storage and computational mining activities resources also got the chance to obtain compensation via fees. Nowadays that is not the case and the ones providing only storage resources (aka. archival-full-node or better named regular Bitcoin node) do not receive compensation at all; thus no monetary economical incentives to run a regular Bitcoin node exists.
In case regular Bitcoin nodes diminish in numbers spread around the globe, then the “decentralization” and control will be taken by big mining pools or central entities; uniting the storage and mining activities again in one single original Bitcoin node or in its defect, the most important feature of the Bitcoin System - it’s decentralization - will be destroyed and that would make it not different from any other altcoin network existing nowadays.
