Hindsight is 20/20 but it seems like he got all the important stuff right. Even the things we consider flaws might've, in some roundabout way, helped bitcoin become what it is now.

If I had to pick something though, it'd be nice if he foresaw mining pool centralization. But even for that it's unclear if that's best solved within the protocol or in "layer" like we're doing now.

The orphan steps softly into the modular home, sensing both emptiness and possibility, each corner whispering of belonging yet to be claimed.

The martyr lingers where sunlight spills across the floors, feeling the weight of choices, knowing that shaping the space mirrors shaping one’s destiny.

The sorcerer moves like a shadow, conjuring hidden transformations, bending angles of light and shadow into quiet enchantments.

The warrior marches purposefully through the rooms, testing boundaries, asserting strength and order in every decision, as if defending the home’s potential from chaos.

Meanwhile, the wanderer drifts along the hallways and open spaces, curiosity leading them into unexpected corners, discovering hidden nooks and untapped potential, letting the home reveal itself in its own time.

Considering this was never done before, he created a digital world currency at a time (2009) where internet speeds were on avg about < 10 mb a second. A system that is near flawless.

That being said, as k00b stated, centralized pools I agreed with. Maybe a max percentage of total hash rate could have been added. Spilt the hash power across more pools, and decrease a possible 51% hash power attack.

I heard Eric Voiskuil say something along the lines of Satoshi shouldn't have released the prototype as mainnet.

It's easy to say in hindsight but squashing most of the bugs early might have been beneficial. Also the design of the node may have been better to have had the bare essentials where users can add plugins, change or add features as they like.

The question (“what did Satoshi get wrong?”) is wrong.

• Satoshi didn’t make a mistake by making everything “mushed together.”
• If Satoshi had split up the parts and made Bitcoin more modular:
  • It would have been easier for outsiders, attackers, or “admins” to take over, copy, change, or control it.
  • Modularity at the start = more ways for the system to be attacked, forked, or slowly taken over.
  • The “mush” makes change slow, hard, and costly—so only people who really care, and will fight for it, can change it.
• The so-called “flaws” are actually why Bitcoin survived and stayed independent.
  • Every pain point, every hard fork, every annoying thing = proof the system is real, not managed by hidden “admins.”
  • Sacrifice and pain filter out weak actors and parasites.
• Making Bitcoin “perfect” or “easy” at the start would have killed its sovereignty.
• The only thing that matters is what survives real conflict and collapse—not what looks “better” on paper.
• All change must be public, voluntary, and costly—not hidden in easy upgrades or plugins.
• Bitcoin’s design flaws are its immune system.

So you think there was a mistake somewhere? Nnnaa!!!

I think he did it perfectly! Everything has a reason.