What I tried to do was have a "pipe" filter in exim that would call gpg on the body to check if it is a pgp encrypted message to my public key. I could never get a pipe filter to work at all.

I never tried to make a simpler filter to check if the beginning/end of the message has the form you suggest. I don't know how to do that either, but I have a strong feeling if I did most of my emails would look like

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Unencrypted content
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Out of curiousity though, how would you implement the kind of filter you're suggesting?

I'd like all emails sent to me to be PGP encrypted. Asking people to PGP encrypt emails seems to have no effect. One idea I had was to set up a mail server so that unencrypted mails bounce back to the sender and only encrypted mails filter through to me. My attempts to set this up were unsuccessful. So now I'm thinking of a simple manual version. Here's the idea:

I need a "mail assistant." There will be an email account that both the mail assistant and I have access to. The mail assistant should log in once a day to check for mail. For each unencrypted mail, the mail assistant should send a canned reply (I'll supply the text) indicating that only PGP encrypted messages filter through to me. For each encrypted mail, the mail assistant should forward it to me. I suppose if a mail is only partially encrypted, it should be forwarded to me with the unencrypted parts removed. I could use my access to the email account to occasionally audit and make sure that the mail assistant is doing what I expect.

This seems like something that would only take a few minutes once a day. (Someone with the proper skills might be able to automate it.) I'd be willing to pay $5/week in btc for a mail assistant to do this for me. It makes sense to do this on a weekly basis in case one of us decides to "cancel" at some point. PM me if you're interested, especially if you're willing to do it for less.

The yahoo article in the OP doesn't even mention Bitcoin.

In any case, if there is an example of Bitcoin being used by terrorists, the authorities should be happy. Bitcoin is much easier to trace than cash.

I also think it's better not to change things, but just to wait out the current digger. It looks like it will be a matter of months, not years, at the current rate. Of course, I sympathize with the big holders, especially dooglus. It's a tough situation, but a temporary one.

It's good Peter R made this post. For those of you unfamiliar with academia, if someone calls you "Professor" and you're not a professor (or "Dr." and you don't have a Ph.D.), you're supposed to correct it. In this case, one could properly say "Dr. Rizun" -- at least according to the Ledger Editorial Board web page.

As for the XT/BIP101/1MB/8MB/8GB topic, having read much of this thread and many other related threads, I think I'd like to smile and slowly back away.

Das ist schon heute! Ich werde da sein.

---

This is already today! I will there be.

---

Jeux sans frontieres. Je veux qu'on s'amuse comme des fous.

I don't think changes to the coin should be considered. It's no surprise that there are some people with access to a Satoshi-level supply.

With a half million clams, someone can crash the price temporarily. However, as has been mentioned, this isn't the most profitable move.

Compare it to the block reward. With 1 clam reward being produced roughly every minute, there are roughly half a million clams produced every year. If the new big holder decides to sell his supply over the course of a year, it's similar (in terms of supply) to the block reward doubling. In that case it's reasonable for the price to drop by half. If the new big holder decides to sell his supply over the course of a month, it's similar to the block reward increasing to roughly 13 clams per minute. In that case it's reasonable for the price to drop to roughly the 1 mbit level.

Incidentally, while this is obviously bad for the price, it may ultimately cause Clams to climb higher on coinmarketcap.com, since for some reason coinmarketcap.com does not count still-buried clams in the supply.

Perhaps it's good to separate between necessary conditions vs. sufficient conditions for success. You seem to be saying that significantly more people using Bitcoin is not sufficient, because decentralization and financial freedom are necessary.

Propositionally we could assert that the following would be true in every world:

SD: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

Or, if we want to be classical and avoid implication, the following are both always true:

SD: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

I agree that both decentralization and supporting financial freedom are necessary. (In fact, now that I've clearly stated this, I'm not sure I currently consider Bitcoin "successful." I would tend to consider Bitcoin to be successful at the moment, but I also believe that mining is currently too centralized.)

Is a signficant increase in adoption necessary? By "significant" here I mean something more than twice the current users. I haven't thought deeply about the specific numbers. I can try an absolute percentage just to be precise. Is it possible for Bitcoin to be successful if less than 0.1% of the people in the world use it? Actually, I'm inclined to distinguish between "use it directly" (meaning the individual holds the private keys and sends transactions to be included into the block chain without using a third party service) and "use it indirectly" (via third party services). "Mass adoption" would very likely give different percentages for direct use and indirect use (as has the current level of adoption). You can decide if "use it" means "use it directly" or "use it indirectly" -- and you can adjust the percentage -- before deciding on an answer.

(Incidentally, while I find the discussion interesting, I can't be online often. If I don't reply quickly, or even daily, it's not with ill intent.)

Great! Welcome to the thread. I agree that there's been too much ad hominem and hyperbole. It would be better if, in particular, people avoided accusing BlockStream of nefarious plans for profiteering and accusing Gavin Andreson of being a CIA mole.

I've thought about ways to try to seriously apply logic to the situation. It's tricky. Let's assume everyone on all sides wants Bitcoin to be successful. The problem is that "success" for Bitcoin means different things to different people. We could distinguish them as different predicates: successful(1), successful(2), successful(3), and so on. And beyond defining success, it's possible for people to have a variety of views on the matter: Bitcoin is successful(i) now and we must keep it successful(i). Bitcoin is not successful(i) now and we must make it successful(i).

It might be possible to model the situation using some kind of modal logic or directly with Kripke semantics. There's the world as it is today, and then there are multiple possible worlds* that may follow. In some of those accessible possible worlds, Bitcoin would be successful(i) and in others it would be unsuccessful(i). Different choices about the development of Bitcoin change the world and so change the possible worlds that can follow. It's probably best that I stop here and continue if there's interest or criticism.

*Sometimes people object to the way "possible worlds" sounds and prefer something like "possible states of the world." They're the same in the way I'm using it here.


It sounds like your primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is that significantly more people use it than currently do. Is that correct? Would you consider Bitcoin successful if, say, it kept the same number of users as now (give or take a factor of two)?

Thanks for the clarification. Reading the relevant portions of your comments again, I can see this interpretation, so I'm willing to just accept that I misunderstood. It would've been clearer to me if you'd asked me to flesh out the argument if you didn't accept there is such an argument. Here's the closest thing to an actual argument I gave:


It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Your modified version of my axiom was: "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor."

You are now saying (bold above) you "agree" with this axiom. (I think you mean you believe the axiom is true, since I never introduced the statement or suggested it was true.) However, it's also clear from your previous posts that you clearly don't believe "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor." Is it possible you're confused about what you're really trying to say?

Strengthening an assumption actually weakens the argument. This is probably obvious to everyone, so no need to elaborate.


Actually, you never challenged my argument. You changed one of the axioms and then challenged that modified axiom. Again, this is probably obvious to everyone, so there's no need to elaborate.

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one. There are also logical arguments for supporting XT. Both Gavin and Mike are good at writing articles outlining such arguments (e.g., read Hearn's Crash Landing post). Ultimately, as I've already said, the difference is in the axioms -- the assumptions about what Bitcoin is or should be -- assumptions about what might occur in the future. This becomes clear if one reads the actual arguments both sides make (when it's not just ad hominem). Most people who've followed the block size issue for a while are aware of the arguments on both sides.

Regarding Tor, my axiom was that XT makes running Bitcoin behind Tor difficult, not impossible. You strengthened my axiom in order to attack it more easily. It's not a valid logical technique, but it's one commonly employed: Strawman.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.0

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Attacking an axiom is definitely not forbidden. It's the only reasonable way to reject the conclusion of a correct argument. That's why I said:


You seem to have picked "some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor" as an axiom to question. I can first say that I'm aware that the announced intention of the code is to counter a DDOS attack. I can even concede that is the reason for the code and that nothing nefarious is intended. (I don't know, of course.) Nevertheless, it's clear that under some conditions nodes will begin dropping connections to nodes behind Tor. This will make it difficult to run Bitcoin behind Tor, at least during those times. In the axiom I used the phrase "safely behind Tor," but I haven't justified "safely." I don't really need to since my original argument wouldn't depend on "safely." I could weaken the axiom by dropping "safely" and still make an argument concluding XT should be opposed. Nevertheless, it seems that if a user running Bitcoin XT behind Tor isn't careful, the code might make certain calls that reveal the user's true IP. That's how I would justify "safely" if it became necessary.


I hope the scare quotes aren't a sign of logophobia. I mean, it's the 21st century. We're here. We're clear. Get used to it.

Edit: The last line was just for fun. I thought I made up the word "logophobia" meaning "fear of logic." It turns out "logophobia" is already a word that means "fear of words." So it turns out it doesn't even make sense.

I was trying to say it without sounding insulting to Blazr. He's been here longer than I have. If I'm wrong about the history, I'll admit it and apologize. I think he's probably confusing the block size limit with something else. Memory is imperfect. Regarding the 32 MB, I think that was effectively a limit since that was the size limit on all messages.

First, this is a terrible analogy. Changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be made in any way similar to the way presidents are elected. In any case, presidents can be (and often are) elected by a plurality, not a majority. A candidate with less than 50% of the vote won in 1992, 1996 and 2000.


I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous. I started to write that I have a "deep interest" in Bitcoin, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. What I see happening now makes me tend to think the Bitcoin "community" isn't so different from other communities. People split into tribes, shout at each other, call each other names, and then celebrate their victories or console themselves with their losses. I suppose I was too optimistic to think a cryptocurrency community would be different. One reason I thought it was different was that I had the impression that the fundamental rules were fixed and no longer in the hands of fallible humans. It turns out this isn't true.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?


I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

It's natural when people get into these kind of tribal arguments that statements such as "XT should be opposed" or "XT should be supported" themselves rise to the level of axioms, or, fundamental beliefs. Once that happens, any statements that would contradict the fundamental belief are immediately rejected. At that point it's impossible to have a consistent set of beliefs/axioms that would imply the opposing statement. In other words, eventually people are so sure of their position that it's impossible to convince them of anything contrary to it. If that's what's happened here, then every logical argument someone could give which concludes "XT should be opposed" would necessarily have at least one axiom you would reject. Your only other choices would be to change your mind about the conclusion or ignore the argument. Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

Since it doesn't seem to have come up again, I will be more definite in my assertions: Satoshi added a 1MB block size limit in 2010. It has never been raised since. It has been discussed many, many times, but it has never been raised.

The debate is acrimonious enough without trying to rewrite the history of what's happened.

This is a well known thread from October 2010 (well, the first 12 posts are from then):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347

Jeff Garzik proposed a patch to lift the max block size limit. It can be seen from the code that the size limit at that time was already 1MB.


Theymos and Satoshi warned against the patch:


This is the thread in which Satoshi had an often quoted reply about how to raise the limit:


I wasn't around back then, but it seems clear to me that Satoshi was still around when the 1MB limit was put in place. I know I've read that he introduced it himself in mid-2010, but I don't have a source to back that up. Is there some evidence that the limit was originally smaller than 1MB and then was lifted (twice?) until it was 1MB? I have to admit, I'm skeptical of the claim that it's been raised before. But I could be wrong.

Wait. Now I'm even more confused, and I thought I knew the history of this. It was Satoshi who introduced the 1MB block size limit, right? He did in 2010 to help prevent denial of service attacks. I'll see if I can find some sources.

This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.