I think this is a big joke，https://u.today/craig-wright-wins-bitcoin-copyright-lawsuit-against-pseudonymous-developer

Bitcoin.org, a prominent website that supports the development of the leading cryptocurrency, will have to remove all references to the Bitcoin white paper in the U.K. following the court’s decision.

Cobra, a pseudonymous Bitcoin developer behind the project, chose not to reveal his identity to defend himself in front of the court. Hence, a default judgement was given to Wright.       

Apart from taking down the flagship cryptocurrency’s founding document, Cobra will also have to pay £35,000 ($48,655) in legal fees.         

In January, lawyers representing nChain’s chief scientist demanded that Bitcoin.org and Bitcoincore.org remove the white paper due to alleged copyright infringement.

Their letters sparked a major outcry within the cryptocurrency community, with companies and even governments moving to publish the copies of Bitcoin’s white paper on their websites in a rebuke to Wright.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I even think this thing is a means of BSV marketing.

If this thing is true, then it proves that bsv is the real Bitcoin，

Please log in  your bitcointalk account，Then verify your identity, otherwise I won’t believe you are Satoshi！

For what it's worth: 

I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code.  Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB.  Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.  But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.

At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a  lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees. 

Здравствуйте.

Биржа BitFex.trade приглашает к сотрудничеству листинг-менеджеров. Оплата $1000 за любую монету или токен, который оплатит листинг. Стоимость листинга 0.3 BTC из которых 30% получите вы после успешного размещения токена.

Я думаю , это предложение актуально еще и для тех у кого депо не большое.

The quote says one thing, reality says another.

Reality = right now you can't get to a blocksize where you can do visa level tx capacity.

And this is similarly true, not only for bitcoin, but bitcoin-based clones and other blockchain-based systems.

Did it increase by tenfold in 5 years? Not even close. Satoshi did not have the adequate data here.
We need not appeal to authority. Just because Satoshi invented it, that does not mean that he knows the answers to everything.

Kαλησπέρα, μεταξύ bittrex και binance ποιο προτιμάτε; Mόλις ξεκίνησα να ασχολούμαι με το άθλημα και ακόμα μαθαίνω τα βασικά. Υπάρχει δυνατότητα για fiat funding και στα 2? Αν όχι, ποιά διαδικασία να ακολουθήσω;

Which OS are you using now? I have no problem with windows 10.

disconnect from internet and make a local network of nodes using `connect` command.

Every deposit, in the same or different addresses is technically separated. These are called "inputs".

However, your wallet does all the work to join them together and spend the ones needed when you are making a transaction. There is no difference.

case A)
1. Receive 1 BTC in Address X;
1. Receive 0.5 BTC in Address X;
2. Send 1.5 BTC to Binance's Address in one transaction;

case B)
1. Receive 1 BTC in Address X;
1. Receive 0.5 BTC in Address Y;
2. Send 1.5 BTC to Binance's Address in one transaction;

Exchanges create one address (or multiple addresses) linked to each user. If you have your address X, they know its yours. Everything is done automatically by their system. Every other explanation is probably way technical for you.

Following scenario: A government would like to destroy Bitcoin. It buys a significant number of ASICs to build up a huge mining farm and carries out a 51% attack.
From my point of view it will not be so easy to buy so many ASICs as once - what do you think?
Another question: Will it be noticed (how?) that somebody buys a big stack of ASICs and/or are we able to identify such a behavior monitoring the network's hashrate?

It's a rather controversial topic to discuss about. The thing about block interval is that the security of the network is taken into consideration. With a faster block, there is a risk that the propagation of the block within the network is too slow and that miners ends up mining a lot of orphans and causing more forks. Since Satoshi never publicly stated his rationale for the 10 minute block interval, it is widely assumed to be arbitary. Arguably, with better internet connection right now, the block interval can be lowered but there are still quite a few concerns.

You are correct in saying that  it is noted in the original paper but only as a reference.


In my view it was done as a way to limit the amount of wastage as the block time increases you would see wastage drop there could also be a number of other factors that could point to why the 10 min time was included.

Such as if many nodes were to be generating the same block at the same time it could lead to more frequent forks this in turn would lower the strength of the network and push the times for conformations up.

For example if everyone is to be mining block 999,999 and miner A solves the block first and pushes it to the network all the other miners who would be at { t0 + t } t= time taken by miner A to mine and submit block 999,999.

Lets say miner B finds miner A's block at {(t0 + t)+ 1} with taking into account network latency miner B and all other miners who finish mining the same block where (t0 + t)< (t0 +t) + (delta_t)i < (t0 + t) + 1

All are successful in mining but they would have wasted there energy in doing so this shows the total wastage of the network resulting in a orphan block would need to be.

sum of { (t+ (delta_t)i ) * (hr)i } for every i

I'm sure there are other reason behind this that I have missed out on but it is an interesting topic to look over even just as a thought experiment.

A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore’s Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.

Adaptive block size increases like this are easily gamed. An attacker intent on bloating block sizes can simply flood the network with transactions. The attack will actually become cheaper over time as block size increases, which makes it especially dangerous.