What ticked me off is the quote from Wikipedia in the context of adam3us signature


I realized that I was wrong after adam3us clarified:





My question about a quote from Satoshi was actually a serious one, there is a lot of things I missed or don't know.

P.S. sorry for the off topic, won't post about it here any more.

Only Satoshi can tell what kind of influence it was, do you have any quotes? If you compare technical details of those two systems then it's like computer vs abacus

Wikipedia article about Hashcash has the next line "It [Hashcash proof-of-work system] is also used as the proof-of-work protocol in Bitcoin" Wiki:Hashcash, which was added by you on November 2012. I think you have quite an ego considering there is no much similarities between the two apart from the name.

Already legal age but still young enough to get scammed easily.

I read the thread but didn't find an answer to the question, was it posted somewhere else e.g. dev mailing list?

retep, with your design, no more then 5 payment processors will have 80% share of all bitcoin transactions because this is how things work, you can take the clue practically from any other global market consolidation. So what is the point of having decentralized validation system if a user has to choose between 5 centralized solutions to make a transaction?

EDIT: just realized that some people may not understand the consequences. It will be super easy to regulate those payment processors and enforce arbitrary rules about what people can or can't do with their money.

The problem with current tx replacement proposals is that it requires to trust a miner to replace non final tx in memory pool for final and commit it into a block, in other words it's just slightly more secured version of 0-confirmation transaction.

The idea is to have nLockTime transaction committed into a block, but it becomes spendable only after nLockTime expires and if at any point before that a final version of the transaction appears in a block then nLockTime transaction becomes invalid, needless to say between payer and payee, only payee should be able to finalize transaction.

It is obvious for a government to force merchants to use it's blacklists, just pay to a merchant with tainted coins for what seems like a regular purchase and then see if he is going to report it, use fines and so on if merchant didn't report it. And before you are going to resort to the usual argument that democracy will sort it out, Bitcoin was created in the first place because democracy doesn't work in the matter of regulating financial system, majority of the people can't make an informed decisions about the matter, otherwise we wouldn't have Ben Bernanke printing money or almost legalized theft from Cyprus bank accounts. Bitcoin can bring free market into financial system, in free market smart individuals who get it right take all the benefits even if majority think they are wrong, they will be able to invent useful services and continue their work if there won't be majority of uninformed people standing in their way.

That's what I think too, but it seems MtGox will also apply the same restrictions to Canadians, so I assume that Canadian customers were sold to Vess as a package deal.

Are you going to forbid Canadian citizens from trading directly on MtGox?

So, your point is that those who use bitcoin as investment doesn't benefit from the system and therefore shouldn't pay anything to make it more secure. Again, I started this thread to make a point that any arbitrary rule that redistributes money is a really bad thing, and shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.

You should have finished reading my post, it's not that long.

Making block space arbitrary scarce will subsidies miners at the expense of people who are using the network for transactions. If the network security is the ultimate goal then it will be better to have indefinite inflation of fixed or variable amount of bitcoins per block because it will tax everyone equally not only those who are trying to make a use of the system by performing transactions.

My personal opinion is that free market in most cases works better then any arbitrary economic rule, therefore I am against subsidizing miners with more bitcoins then absolutely necessary.

Lets say you have 1025 full nodes on the network, to keep the example simple we will have those nodes connected in a form of binary tree where a block starts propagating from it's root. Lets say it takes 1 minutes for a node to verify a block and relay it to its children, then it will take 10 minutes for 1024 nodes ( I exclude the root from verification time) to verify the block, in another words it takes 10 minutes for a block to get propagated and verified by the network.

Now lets have a bigger block that takes twice more time to verify, then it will take 20 minutes for 1024 nodes to verify the block, in another words it will take twice more minutes for a block to get propagated and verified by the network. Therefore the relationship between verification time of block and propagation delay it's causing is linear, e.g. if it takes thrice more time to verify a block then, in the simplified example, it will take thrice more time to propagate it through the network.

Wrong, because the number of nodes getting involved in verification of specific block grows exponentially as well, so the relationship between number of transactions and propagation time is linear.

As an analogy think about how a bacteria multiplies, at every step a size of the colony increased by factor of 2 until it's reached lets say 1024, if suddenly it requires twice more time to multiple then it takes only twice longer to reach the size of 1024 because the number of multiplication steps is still the same.

same here, I will donate 20 BTC for this

A marketplace for items of extreme low value. That kind of business model is uncharted territory because it wasn't viable before Bitcoin, so it would be nice if we can figure out what kind of penny value items, digital goods or services people would want to buy.

Integration and easy to use is what people want from Bitcoin and this what makes it easier to become mainstream, and certainly this is where it's all going. But it also demotivates people from creating and using tools to circumvent current laws and the whole system becomes dependent on current regulations. Your blog past has valid arguments and as usual the truth is somewhere in between those two view points, but don't pretend like you know exactly what is the correct thing here in a long term.

Your gut feeling tells you that bitcoins are valuable because only 21 million will ever exist, what you are missing is that those bitcoins have to exist as records in the blockchain database we all use, otherwise it has no value.


That's exactly what I did:
Property: a record in a database that is consistent among many people.
Ownership of the record: ability to rightfully change it.
Stealing of the record: unauthorized change.

If that makes no sense to you then there isn't much I can do about it.

To elaborate:
If we think about our universe as database that perceived the same way by everyone then ownership is access rights to certain records and stealing is unauthorized change of those records, e.g. if I own piece of gold it means that I can change the record about it's location or grant to someone else the right to change it, stealing means that someone changed it's location without my permission. The same definitions can be applied to Bitcoin.

Ownership of bitcoins means you are free to change the record by sending it to anywhere.
Stealing of bitcoins means unauthorized change of the record by sending it to an address controlled by someone else.