There is at least one good reason, one which at the least I and Peter Todd support. It's an authoritarian one, though. (And thus, as above, I'm not really for a limit.)

Necessity is mother of all invention, and there are a shit-ton of things than can and are being made to aggregate transactions in different ways, ways which have different incentive, economic, and security implications. This impending limit has caused a great deal of thinking and research on sidechains, treechains, and several other things.

For this reason, while I'm for removal of the limit, I'm in no great hurry to see it happen, until TT1C (time-to-1st-confirmation) begins to be detrimentally impacted. So I've stumped a bit on the "leave it alone" side in some places.

So why am I here? (1) we're nearing where it could start non-negligibly impacting TT1C soon; and most of all (2) so long as this is getting debated hotly, I must insist that if it is to be changed, don't just replace 1MB with another dumb limit!

edit: So in any case there's no good reason for 1MB forever, which was your phrasing. In fact there's no good reason to have a blocksize limit while having a mintxfee; they solve the same problem.

Right. I'm against his current plan of arbitrary increases. I'm not for NO maximum, but this is semantics -- there is also a max and min difficulty, etc. So, I'm for the max being de facto because of the protocol spec, as with difficulty.

Anti-spam measures need only exist to prevent DOS. (There might be an argument for preventing bandwidth-based centralization as well.) This can be managed via fees, which should be made algorithmic instead of arbitrary, as well.



To remind the thread, most pools cap blocks at 750k right now. (If you don't know why they'd do this, you really shouldn't be commenting on blocksize at all, without more understanding of how this all works!) This isn't going to change with the 1MB cap removed. The economics of Bitcoin will not really change with a blocksize increase.

So, tl;dr my recommendation is remove the 1MB cap; allow message length to be the current upper bound -- don't just drop another new arbitrary cap in place.

Yep. Good enough for me. I'm of a mindset that you "don't change the original design unless there is hard evidence of a need". I'm against Gavin's plan simply because the numbers are arbitrary, and I don't like arbitrary. I'm in favor of rolling back to the original message length limitation and letting the miners determine block length based on their internal cost/benefit analysis using fees and orphan probability.

I don't want a "new" blocksize; I want the old blocksize back. When that gets full, we can discuss it further, and it'll be for the same reason that one day, we'll need to extend the decimal precision to allow division of satoshis.

In general I agree. He's got plenty of bitcoins that aren't ID'd as Satoshi coins. Gavin going to the CIA is likely what caused him to withdraw. And he's probably still around here somewhere.

However, there is something to the Nick Szabo connection. Yet, Szabo himself appears to be possibly a pseudonym, so it's really hard to say. He may well have been a close follower of Szabo's work, and hid his tracks a bit that way. One standout word to me, which Satoshi used and is characteristic of a Japanese writing in English, is “ellided”. This isn't a commonly-known thing, but is apparent on use of Google n-grams, so it seems unlikely this would be a false clue. They did, however, both use the less-common term for hourglass ("sandglass"). So I am 50/50 on whether it's Szabo or an actual Japanese.

Exactly. To my original quote about where this requires a not-so-simple explanation, I mean less simple than just, “Satoshi posted it.”

That requires a rather not-simple explanation for how someone posted as Satoshi during the Dorian thing.

So, is BitSimple dead, effectively? The ACH issue has existed for months now, and I have never seen the Buy option lit up. I've checked many times, but it always says that today's funds are exceeded. Are there ever any funds? If so, why has BitSimple chosen to go with the socialist model for economic pricing, rather than modifying the pricing to make buy/sell demand equal?

…yeah

That's Paypal. That's their fee. It sounds like you're trying to sell me on Paypal, haha. Use it if it's useful to you, good sir, idc either way. Your cost/benefit analyses are your own.

I've done it before, for a weekend emergency when ACH would have been too slow. Not a fan of 2.2% but that's Paypal. There's not much reason not to, if Paypal's your thing.

Bank of America.

The thief lost the right to the coins when he transferred them to someone else's account (BTER). At that point there was a consensual, voluntary relationship between BTER and the thief, one which was entered into by false pretenses (the thief was not known as a thief). It is not a matter of legality but of simple ethics. The only concern might be that an account was "framed" for some reason -- but that's simple, too. Say the account holder notifies BTER with the claim that they are not the thief. Maybe, maybe not. But we know for sure whose coins they are, so send the funds back to Klee, and any preexisting funds should be left to the "maybe-thief".

As long as any preexisting funds in the account aren't withheld, there is no ethical dilemma. BTER is not stealing, they are removing consent from being party to abet an existing theft of property, now that they have proof of the theft.

This is the line in the sand I draw with blacklisting, and anything else, really. Voluntary interaction only. I can have a personal "blacklist" which I call a greylist, since using colors for lists is a thing. It's very short.

But most people in Bitcoin when discussing this train of thought, whether it's called redlisting or blacklisting or whatever, are referring to some sort of mandatory process that becomes an enforced part of Bitcoin or something, which removes the ability to consent from the mix. That , therefore, I cannot support.

Greylisting, my term for personal, voluntary lists -- tbh, I just named it now for this post, I can't lie -- is something everyone already has, anyway. You and you alone choose who you trade and interact with (and they as well), for myriad reasons. Maybe you just don't like their faces. You may be judged for public interactions and trades (or also for not interacting or trading), and treated accordingly. Thus people may greylist you for bad behavior, or prefer you over another otherwise equivalent trade partner for prior behavior they liked. Each individual may then also be judged and greylisted for their public greylists, and so on. Bottom line, it's all voluntary, including the private/public part.

This, as far as I know, is the only ethically- and logically-consistent manner to do such things.

Work, in Bitcoin and biologically, is a measure of energy expenditure over an amount of time. Proof that work has been done in either system is probabilistic: You might generate a winning hash on your first try, but it's unlikely, and with a longer sampling size, the probability is apparent.

In biological systems, there is just chemistry, specifically receptors and ligands, that kind of thing, but we could just as easily be talking about a solution with two reagents of a specific reactivity. Given a concentration of reagents and their reactivity, at a given temperature their movement results in a predictable reaction speed. Two individual molecules might get "lucky" but on the whole, the rxn speed is probabilistic.

With all other variables held static, the only way to speed or slow the reaction rate, which is dictated by the collision rate of the constituents, which is dictated by the temperature of the solution... you can only vary the temperature, which requires an expenditure of energy over time: Work. Given identical concentrations and amounts of reagents in two separate experiments, where each takes place for a set period of time, but are heated at different but unknown amounts, at any given moment of examination, the one which has reacted further probably has had more work done on it. The shorter the inspection interval, the less confident you can be that a period of luck hasn't occurred, but over time, you are confident.

For simplicity, let us say that at each inspection interval, the precipitate is removed along with a quantity of pure solute such that the concentration of reagents remains the same. This way, we can look at the precipitate formed as a percentage of the total potential precipitate, and we can isolate the change in concentration, which we would normally need to do in real life.

For Solution A, I generated a random integer from 0 to 4, for each time period, simulating that quantity of energy input. (Whatever quantity is necessary to react 2% of the reagent in that inspection period, on average). For B, I generated a random integer from 0 to 3. (Over time, we'd expect to see a 1.5% RoR.)


Time | Sol'n A | Sol'n B
   0       0%        0%
   1       2%        3%
   2       4%        3%
   3       7%        6%
   4      10%        7%
   5      10%        10%
   6      14%        11%
   7      17%        11%
   8      20%        11%
   9      21%        13%
  10      24%        13%
  11      28%        16%
  12      30%        16%
 . . . .
  18      49%        26%
  24      66%        31%
  32      87%        46%
  40      99%        58%
  41     100%        61%
 . . . .
  46     [done]      76%
  52     [done]      81%
 . . . .
  58     [done]      92%
  59     [done]      92%
  60     [done]      94%
  61     [done]      96%
  62     [done]      99%
  63     [done]     100%


These numbers work out nicely to illustrate the point. I just generated them until the point became clear; even here, it wasn't until "block" 6 that B appeared to gain on A. This is analogous, in Bitcoin, to beginning with a block at height N, which here we can just call 0, and seeing how quickly a given hashpower progresses. If the power of A + B is 100%, the power behind "pool" B is about 43% of the total, and A, 57%. For the first few blocks, B was a bit luckier vs. its true power, but A caught up; over the course of the experiment, A ended up "luckier" overall even compared to its true power (progressing at ~2.44% per interval, to B's ~1.59%, also slightly "lucky").

Cellular signalling systems are all dependent on the probabilities of reaction which is governed by energy input. It is no coincidence that blockchained proofs of work proves a precise probabilistic amount of work was performed. PoS systems do something, perhaps, but I am not familiar with a scientific analogue to "stake". It's proof of possession, but I don't know of a way that is useful in a signalling context.

Intra- and inter-cellular biological systems like humans, signalling is effectively PoW. When this is circumvented, you get cancer or other cellular malfunctions. We aren't really special. The behavior of a cell is an abstraction of its composite parts. Likewise, we humans are an abstraction of our composition. We interact with each other, and without reliable means of signalling, bad things happen. A global PoW-based signalling network, as set out by S. Nakamoto, is the final primary invention necessary to achieve a Tier 1 society.

Non-PoW signalling mechanisms have uses, but there is always a tradeoff, and they cannot replace PoW. With imperfect signalling, you get the corrupted outsomes of socialist systems, and the corrupted outcomes of capitalist systems. Both work on paper, and the failures of each result from the same cause: failures in signalling. Imperfect information, asymmetric information, or good information but too slowly (which is a form of asymmetry).

As information asymmetry trends to zero, and the propagation time of perfect information trends to zero, the difference between the endgame of a socialist and a capitalist system trends to zero, and we achieve a tier 1 society.

Given two alternative theories of how things might become, theories of identical predictive ability, the simpler one is best, and more often right. This is Solomonoff's Law of Inference. The complement of this is for the same reason, from the same math, and dictates that the more computationally-complex description of the vector toward the past, given merely that it exists alongside a simpler one, is harder to forge by accident or maliciously, and therefore can be assumed true with a given probability weight. These things are all intertwined with the very nature of entropy and causality and the universe itself, and cannot be circumvented, no matter how warm and fuzzy a "greener" (or more frightful still, "fairer") proof system makes one feel. In fact, any time a non-PoW system is used as if it were a PoW system, it will be less "green" in the long run, although it may deceive cells or people in the short run if they are not immune to the deception.

Not a massive deal, you guys have always been great, and infinitely better than Coinbase. The panicky situation of not knowing and having struggles with support (again, just not *knowing* -- aka, what are the hours, that kind of thing) is my only beef here.

Changing it to say 4 PM EST is a perfect solution. (No one will ever complain if it magically goes through a little after the cutoff!) Thanks for the quick reply. How long will it take to roll back my account so that I can request the after-hours PayPal transaction?

It pains me to say this, as I've been an outspoken supporter — in the past, BitSimple would have accurately been described as a site which just works.

Here is my current experience:

An unexpected emergency has occurred and I needed USD. I transferred and sold Ƀ at BitSimple today, as I've done many times, and elected to wire out to my bank, which I've also done many times here. This usually takes around an hour or so; I never paid much attention because it was always quick. The transfer completed according to the UI and the timestamp is before the cutoff by about 15 minutes. I've also gotten this close to the cutoff before, which contributed to my confidence in BitSimple.

It's been several hours, however, and I haven't seen anything in my bank account.

Ok. So I email support, but that promises to take a day or so.

So I try live chat, and watch my as the Desk help window timer ticks up to 18 minutes waiting for a reply. (It says "we will be with you shortly" the whole time.)

So I call the phone number for support, which says something about being redirected and a grasshopper—idk, automated service I guess—and then immediately get a voicemail saying they're closed, but nothing about what hours they're *open*.

It's the weekend now. There will be no bank movement if it hasn't happened already. This is extremely bad for personal reasons, as I live very much on 99.9% Ƀ, and those are secured via a multisig arrangement that I cannot access for reasons related to the emergency. Thus, this amount WAS my emergency fund.

I imagine the amount wasn't initiated on time on BitSimple's end. We can discuss that issue later, but right now I need someone from BitSimple to push me the funds ASAP. PayPal is pretty much our only option right now. It's not a good one but that's life. Push me the funds via PayPal and cancel the Wire, which I assume is now scheduled for Monday.

It figures that you'd see it as elitism. Let's recap: You don't understand it, you don't want to read about it, you don't want to hear that that can be dangerous. Fine. You're free to do whatever you like, bud. I'm all about choice and the responsibility that comes with it.

BTW, it is DIFFICULTY that is one of the feedback loops. Naturally, for there to be a loop at all, it must be able to move within a range. "High" difficulty now, according to you—to me, it is operating exactly as designed, and is limiting the release rate of new BTC as intended, and the economy is just doing its supply-and-demand thing based on available tech and the current and speculative price, seen as ROI by miners—and by the time we're at minuscule block rewards and all Tx fees for miner incentives, maybe it'll be what you call "low" relative to the tech at that time.

How can one begin to "argue different[ly]" without understanding the foundational structures? I am continually amazed by the now-majority here in the ruins of the once-brilliant BCT. So glad there's a more "secretive" one, which admits only those who at least have read and grasp maybe 20% of the whitepaper. You'd probably say elitist, I say that's a low bar compared to BCT even 18 months ago. If there were a way to bet on it and it could be proven, I'd wager you've never even skimmed the whitepaper, though only a few pages long.

You really should read it if you give a damn about any of this at all. If you're just here for a thrill or to play with magical internet money like a penny stock hoping to strike it rich, by all means, do as you please. You're right, Doge is more suited for you, then, as a community.

Doge is fantastic, BTW, because of exactly that. What I can't fathom is, why everyone all of a sudden wants the serious Bitcoin communities and the older hands to stop being "serious" and be more like Doge. Serious is how we got here, and it's how you got Doge! Yes, we're flippant about politics and jurisdictional shenanigans. See TPB. Lawmen thinking they can order the internet about is funny to us. But the mission is serious. Financial oppression and economic war is very real and this is the first chance we've had to implement radical change and free billions. Why Bitcoin exists *is serious*. If you're uncomfortable with that, go play with your carefree Shibe brethren. And—I'll repeat this because you're clearly a "muggle" and muggles are like goldfish—I love their being around in their section of the cryptocommunity as well.

What I hate is pretension, mockery, and anti-intellectualism. To say nothing of the incredible disrespect and hypocrisy. You're here because of serious people doing serious work, for free, in their own time, for no guaranteed result. You don't have to worship or love or admire that, but I won't stand for spreading misinformation, refusing to read, and then shrugging it all off like it makes no difference. You're still in a public forum, and a Bitcoin one, and a few random passers-by might actually give half a fuck, brand-new and looking for real answers. You're a "Sr. Member" according to the forum. Fucking act like it, or expect to be called out when one of the few remaining old hands pops by for nostalgia.

I don't know how to simplify it further. It's a system with several feedback loops to self-regulate, just like biological or mechanical systems. These are mechanisms by which the whole operates within design paremeters when individual subsystems are driven out of equilibrium by an environmental delta.

Though fascinating Bitcoin may be, as the first attempt at a global self-regulating economic apparatus, there are just a few feedback loops involved. It is dwarfed by the complexity of myriad manmade and biological systems. So I suggest you spend a few more minutes reading and thinking about the basic building blocks of Bitcoin and derivative cryptocurrencies.

Alternatively, if you insist that you know these pieces already, and still are unclear on even their first-order functioning—which are simpler than the regulatory mechanisms of the humble amoeba—I must conclude that a great number of systems are beyond your grasp, and will certainly not strain to wedge the concept into your mind.

If this is the case, I mean no disrespect or insult. I am not blessed with the time for circumlocution. Be careful around things you don't understand. Bitcoin isn't ready for safe use by you just yet. It's still in the realm of those who understand it, or trust those who do, or just love gambling. The O'Reillys of the world, stymied by gravitational attraction between celestial bodies, are sitting ducks for accidents, robbery, or exploitation (and cannot tell the difference!) when they enter Bitcoinland.

How do you have hundreds of posts and not understand the purpose of difficulty retargets? Let me ask you, then: What do you suppose would happen with fixed difficulty? Or a max difficulty in reasonable space, like, now or before now, so it could only adjust down from here?

The info you need is here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Target

You should conclude that a significant and permanent decline in hashrate would disrupt the economy until two retargets have occurred — between 2016 and up to 4032 blocks must be found at the new hashrate to achieve stasis. The more blocks that need finding, the less important that second retarget is, in terms of achieving full stasis.

Thus, any highly significant permanent change in hashrate, such that the economy will be disrupted (estimating that is another question I suppose) would result in a need for a fork to permit a manual retarget. Not really that big a deal, in practice, unless the cause of the hash speed decrease was unknown to the community, which seems unlikely.

While admittedly correlation is not causation, and there is significant increase in attention to Bitcoin, there is no denying that this forum has become far lower quality in terms of signal-to-noise since April 2013, and especially beginning September or so.

I don't like newbies being relegated to some socialist-like same-punishment-for-all Newbie Jail as it used to be. It would be far preferable to the current situation. However, I'm a firm believer in the notion that there are always more options than the ones given. (Given options are: Keep it as is, which we all know sucks, even the newbies; or, return to the prior jail system.)

I note that we also seem to have lost the ability to paint awful users yellow by clicking their *ignore*. If you're newer around here, the way it worked not long ago at all (before the last hack and downtime, actually) was you'd click the IGNORE link, and there were two side effects. One was, you didn't see the posts: You just saw that they posted, and could selectively expand the post (for example to figure out the context in the even that someone *else* replied to them). The other was, the more members clicked it, the brighter yellow it would become, eventually looking like this:

Ignore


I'd like to see this re-instated. Moreover, I'd like to see it include the Lurker ratio to modify the hue of yellow. As in: The newer you are, the less Ignores it takes to paint you yellow; and, with a bias for quality over quantity (the lower your Lurker ratio, the quicker you become yellow as well).

...I guess I should define the Lurker ratio for those who don't know how it works. This is the two figures beneath an avatar (well, where the avatars used to go; now only older folks have 'em. So, where the nickname/handle goes), entitled Activity and Posts. Activity represents the amount of time you spend actively logged-in and browsing the forum. Posts is as it says on the tin: Number of posts. A high Lurker ratio means you spend a lot of time logged-in and reading, but little time talking. It doesn't guarantee high post quality, but it is a strong indicator of a user who is *likely* to produce higher-quality content.