Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There are some key words that are copy pasted into every conversation of Bitcoin lately. "Satoshi's plan" is one of them. Make of that what you will. Personally I find it a tad bit creepy. Bitcoin is innovative, but it attracts penny stock-like investment schemes like sugar to ants.

Of all the sales pitches for this coin, Satoshi's original plan makes the least possible sense. This is a fork from Satoshi's coin that removes features, the most important of which is the enabler of payment channels, which if anything was Satoshi's plan.

It's not like it's hard to read Satoshi's writings directly from the source. It's seven years ago, not ancient Rome. The forum has almost all of it intact verbatim and then there's the wiki. In what little sense there ever was a "plan" it's in plain view for everyone to see and read all about what people thought of payment channels, fraud proofs, and everything else.


I'm not for or against either side, but what you just said is just plain wrong and it looks as if you are the one who has not read either the paper or the forum post. He did not mention payment chains either in the paper or the old original post about block size.

The very first version of bitcoin had payment channels in the code. That's what sequence numbers are for. That's why there are sighash flags and weird rules for blanking sequence numbers. That's why the first version of bitcoin had transaction replacement.

It just happens to also be the case that the design Satoshi had for payment channels at that time was horribly broken and left nodes open to DoS attacks. So it was removed by other developers and slowly over time safe versions of the features were added again in the form of BIP68 (sequence number transaction replacement) and BIP141 (segwit).

It did not have payment channel code. There is nothing to indicate that the nLockTime field was originally intended for use in payment channels. There is no source for when the conversation between Satoshi and the developer, in which Satoshi describes payment channel functionality, took place.

And large blocks were very much part of Bitcoin's original plan. They were described even before the initial release of the software:


What did you think the purpose of time locked smart contracts was? You can either believe Nakamoto Transactions originated with Satoshi, or you can ask just about anyone who was around at the time. Why do you think there was a scripting language at all? If simple payments was all that was envisioned we wouldn't have needed that.

It's strange thing to try to summarize something and have someone question it happened at all. The subtext of this confuses me. This is a public mailing list and most of the people are still around and can answer much better than I can why the design of the opcodes are the way they are. There have been surprisingly many blind alleys in the short life of Bitcoin.

Payment channels are what Satoshi advocated, but it was my impression at the time that many others were more interested in things like sidechains and bearer proofs. The scalability of a system where everyone stores everyone else's transactions for all eternity was and still is the first thing people comment on. The second is the feasibility of everyday payments when the recommended confirmation time is up to an hour, best case. That's the reason people took interest in these proposals, even at a time when there was no economic pressure to do so, as transactions were completely free.

There's was no "original plan" as much as there were discussions. That doesn't mean Satoshi didn't have opinions. If your impression of the block size is shaped by the carnival mirror that is Reddit, it might be interesting to look at the reasoning why this limit was kept in place. But none of that matters in practice right now, because there is overwhelming consensus to double the block size (or quadruple, thinking adversarially) in a backwards compatible way and this will be active in a matter of weeks.

>If simple payments was all that was envisioned we wouldn't have needed that.

I didn't say that. I said there was no code added with the intention of making payment channels possible. The claim that there was is based on nothing more than conjecture on what the intended purpose of the script was, and the dating of an undated email from Satoshi that was first made public in late 2013.

>There's was no "original plan" as much as there were discussions.

There were multiple statements by Nakamoto explaining how Bitcoin could and would scale. This was widely understood to be the scaling plan, as evidenced by what the Bitcoin Wiki said about scaling all the way up to late 2014. [1]

It's odd for you to describe your conjecture about the intended use for op codes and data fields as facts, while dismissing clear statements of intent by Nakamoto regarding how Bitcoin would be able to scale.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Scalability&oldid=53...

I think we misunderstand each other. I'm not here to present arguments to convince you of anything as there seems to be the subtext of a conflict that I'm not interested in being a part of.

I merely summarized some of the many discussions that took place on a mailing list a few years ago. There are several pointers to notable posts in the wiki, and the archive contains all the source material.

If you or anyone else were also present in those discussions and wishes to analyze what was said and what could have been, I'll gladly take that discussion private. But I'm not interested in discussing the equivalent of whether the moon landing was staged.

Ok, well I HAVE the early code and it very much does have transaction replacement code using the sequence field.

is this the original code - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4405b78d6059e536c3... ? or can you point to earlier version?

It doesn't have anything that could be argued to be intended for payment channels.

There are not "sides" as much as there are countless copies of Bitcoin.

There were lots of discussions around applications of Bitcoin at the time. Payment channels were only one of the suggestions, but it was what Satoshi advocated. Why do you think opcodes for lock times were put in there?

See my answer below. There is no reason to lash out with misguided accusations when everyone can read the discussions in verbatim.

out of curiosity which part? the 9 year old white paper never mentions payment channels

this isn't an opinion about any bitcoin fork, just curiosity about what you are referring to. you say its not hard to read satoshi's words, but you rely on having to read and interpret every single forum post scattered around the internet?

Many of us as has hung around the forum for some time, and followed the discussions as they went along. (If it's any consolation, most with only intellenctual interest and not based on any desire to wire money to some gung-ho Japanese corporation without proper business accounts, which is easy to regret now. But I disgress.) Satoshi posted under that username to mailing lists and forum. They contain everything and it's all open to search, but if you're not looking for something specific it might seem overwhelming.

The white paper is only the overview of the underlying system. You're not going to find anything about the marketplace (look that up, it's funny), payment systems or other applications of Bitcoin in there.

That's why I mentioned the wiki. Like all wikis it's bit rotten and outdated, but it contains a lot of good pointers to the source material, both code and discussions. The page about "Payment channels" isn't a bad first guess. It is too old to help you understand modern systems like Lightning, but it will contain pointers to several other payment channels that have been proposed. Including Nakamoto fast transactions, which as the name might suggest was suggested by Satoshi. It turned out to be a flawed design, but the underlying ideas are basically the same as today.

As an interesting side note, that design was based on replaceable transactions. Another popular thing to copy paste into Bitcoin discussions is some conspiracy why this was developed (and it was indeed proposed for removal in the altcoin chain released today), but here you can see it was actually in Bitcoin from the beginning and how it was supposed to work.

You will also note that many other developers were sceptical about payment channels and preferred instead to work on sidechains, ecash bonds, and other methods. It's not like Poon and Dryja worked in a vacuum, but their work looks like it could actually be useful. Personally I don't expect it to be the final design for payment channels, and there are still much work to do on other methods of zero-confirmation high-throughput payment networks for Bitcoin (such as the above mentioned).

There's still a tremendous amount of work on the technical side of Bitcoin almost every day. Much of it just isn't end user visible because people are still laying the ground work for things to come. We're still very early. This is probably also the reason why these types of work doesn't stir up so much discussion on the mailing list. People are not going to re-base their ongoing work to some other codebase just because someone on Twitter threw a tantrum.

Literally the first sentence:

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments.

So an interpretation to support an ideal despite the optional nature of payment channels, got it. I had ctrl+f "payment channels" and got zero results.

Payment channels, as described by the lightning network, are optional.

The mempool on both chains are practically empty and both chains function the same, until the mempool is full.

One chain will allow for optionally greater throughput via payment channels and possible a block size expansion.

One chain will allow for block propagation upwards of 8 megabytes.

Neither relies exclusively on third parties. The first mentioned chain has an optional ironic future where everyone operates a payment channel and eventually consolidates into one payment channel provider, I guess.

Both chains have other "threats" towards centralization.

If anyone wants to see what the "practically empty" mempools look like over time, this is a great resource:


The connection between full blocks and transaction fees is here:


yep, when full (or when there are more than 1mb of unconfirmed tx) these chains function differently.

if it wasn't clear, I was writing that they are practically empty right now. at the time of writing.

How are "payment channels" part of Satoshi's plan?

Satoshi's plan is defined by his original whitepaper and his public comments, which are pretty specifci.

Bitcoin's original codebase is presumably part of Satoshi's plan. It contained sequence numbers, lock times, and transaction replacement.

the whole thing reminds me of religion. "He intended this, he intended that"

Thou shalt not speak His name in vain! :D

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact