A script could be written to record double spends from the network.  Then you could create a "credit score" based on address usage & double spend history.  But you'd have to be REALLY well connected to catch double spends since they aren't normally propagated very far.  And it would require someone to use the same set of addresses which defeats some of the anonymous nature of bitcoin.

But I don't see any reason that leveraging multiple 3rd parties just like averaging credit scores from Transunion, Equifax, & Experian are a bad solution.  It does require using a 3rd party, but competition will weed out the bad ones.  Then places that require instant payment will have to decide if its worth paying extra to prevent double spends or to accept the risk.

People still use P2P?  I thought people stopped using that as much because of getting served notices for uploading, slow speeds, and viruses.  Usenet always felt like the more secure method since you didn't have to upload, SSL, fast speeds, less malware, and you actually paid (very cheaply) for a service so if anyone ever came knocking you can say you just thought it was like Netflix.

But I agree, Usenet can be pretty complicated to use.  Anyone that understands usenet, shouldn't have a difficult time understanding bitcoin.

This client-side encryption model is awesome.  I remember looking for pastebin-like sites that did the same thing & it was kinda hard to find a good one.  Applying the same idea to binary is great.  I wonder what took so long for this to be standard.

Despite not having access to content, I'm sure the password will leak out for shared illegal content.  I wonder if this will still create the same situation for dotcom again.

Based on M2, dumping $1T into the money supply would make every dollar worth ~10% less?  And the author just said it wouldn't cause inflation?  1% may be small enough to argue it's negligible, but 10% is a pretty hefty tax increase especially considering it mostly affects the poor/middle class since a majority of their wealth is in cash instead of stocks/real estate.

Depends which blockchain is longer, right?  Isn't that the whole point of requiring more than 51% of the hashrate?  If the blockchain with the >1MB blocks is longest, the clients on the accepting side will not see the mining of the non-accepting side because they will be working on a different blockchain.  But if the blockchain with the <=1MB blocks is longest, both clients will see the same thing & be working on the same blockchain.  Hints why it'd make sense to do it now because there aren't any blocks being generated anywhere near the 1MB limit.  So both clients could co-exist for the time being.  There wouldn't be any issue until a >1MB block is generated & accepting nodes own more than 50% of the hashrate.

Miners & clients are the same thing.  Even if you aren't necessarily trying to find the next block, if you are running the client, you are still voting on what blocks are valid & which ones aren't and propagating them appropriately.  The problem isn't that blocks over 1MB would be too large for miners/clients to propagate.  The problem is that they would see the larger blocks as INVALID.

Lets assume 50% of the miners/clients were running bitcoin instances that accepted blocks over 1MB.  It would look like the hashrate dropped in half to both sides.  Basically 2 different versions of bitcoin would exist.  Mtgox, blockchain, slush, deepbit, etc would all have to decide what side to take.  Or they could even fight on both sides.  Technically both could exist indefinitely.  The prices would probably even be different between the two.  Nothing is stopping that from happening...even today.  Same problem happens if advances in quantum computing make people want to use a different encryption method.

I'm not sure if you can really call it a "hard" fork.  Some people could change the limit today without really effecting the network since we aren't really hitting the limit yet.  And it would make the most sense for us to change it now so by the time people start hitting the 1MB limit, it won't be an issue.

Regardless, it isn't really up to the core developers anymore.  The developers at slush or deepbit could change the limit today.  It'd be risky to try to propagate a block today over the limit, but if the larger miners got together and decided on a date to collectively change the limit, there'd be a higher success rate.  The incentives are there, its just a matter of time.

No doubt in my mind that artificially limiting the block size to increase miner fees will bring great success to the next cryptocurrency that does away with the block size limit.

The same argument could be applied to block size.  Competition creates an environment where tx fees = mining costs.  Right now tx fees + block reward = mining costs.  Block reward is high, so tx fees are low.  Once the block limit starts to become a problem, it will be increased or removed.  It's a win-win for everyone.  More transaction fees per block & faster confirmations.  The only downside is a larger blockchain, but I don't think we're even close to limiting transactions based on bandwidth and/or storage concerns.

Keeping the block size limit may increase tx fees in short term, but long term it will be more harmful than good to the miners.  People will be annoyed by the long confirmation times & high fees and start using a different cryptocurrency.  Now the miners have hurt themselves by transferring value out of the bitcoin economy.

Limiting block space isn't the only way to increase mining fees.  Removing/reducing the block reward has the same effect.  Once the reward is less than the cost to mine, most miners will require a tx fee.  Given this incentive, there's really no reason to limit the block size.  It is in the miners best interest to set the limit as high as possible so they can receive the maximum amount of tx fees possible.  For this reason alone I foresee the block limit rising significantly.

Someone could try to disrupt the network with an extremely large block that contains millions of satoshi transactions, but it wouldn't be worth the effort.  Not to mention, miners could set their own size limits (for just this reason) & the consensus could be to orphan the block.

PayPal Bans BitTorrent Friendly Hosting Provider PRQ

https://torrentfreak.com/paypal-bans-bittorrent-friendly-hosting-provider-prq-121224/


Single mention

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/15deyx/paypal_bans_bittorrent_friendly_hosting_provider/

Reddit discussion about the article.  Positive bitcoin comment is 2nd on the page.

Really good.  Definitely recommend.  Thanks for sharing.

This has been talked about before & I agree with it.  But doesn't mean the world can't evolve (or at least some of it).  It takes a while for the potential of new technologies to really shape our political landscape.  The internet has been available to the public for 15-20 years, but you are only recently seeing revolts in Egypt & Syria.  Just imagine 15-20 years from now when more & more people are discovering the benefits of crypto-currencies.  Right now they settle with the current systems because there aren't any good alternatives.  Once new technologies like crypto-currencies make those alternatives available, people will migrate.

You could still double spend a transaction with a fee.  You just need your 2nd transaction to be a larger fee.  If someone was successfully pulling this off on satoshidice, they could have definitely raised the chances for themselves & screwed everyone else.  Maybe dooglus can do an analysis on the luckiest players of satoshidice.

I actually support this.  The sooner people realize this can happen, the sooner people will be educated about the risk of 0 confirmation transactions.  I can't technically conceive a way to prevent this, but ideas like green addresses or physical coins could certainly help reduce the risk for people who rely on instant transactions.

If double spends are really this easy, I can only imagine shady clients that come out in the future that do this automatically.  Obviously someone willing to wait for confirmations will be fine, but how are people going to be expected to wait 10+ minutes at the convenience store for a candy bar purchase?

Is this when green addresses come into play?  The convenience store trusts transactions from mtgox addresses not to attempt double spending so they accept a 0 confirmation payment?

Why are people always trying to forcibly push bitcoin in a certain direction?  Bitcoin will organically pick a path & run with it.  You don't have to sell it for it to work.  It isn't going to go away just because people stop promoting it.  

It is pretty easy to continue using old money to purchase what is currently deemed as legal.  What is more difficult to purchase, especially online, are items that are deemed illegal.  Who would of thought a digital, anonymous currency would start heading in this direction?  If this was the only benefit, bitcoin could end up only being a niche currency.  But fortunately, there are other, more legitimate reasons.

Fiat currencies have forever increasing supplies which creates price inflation.  Most people don't like saving money only to realize it is being eroded away by inflation.  Here's another void bitcoin will easily fill that isn't frowned upon.  This will create a domino effect because a majority of people's wealth will be stored in bitcoins to avoid inflation.  How long will this take to happen?  Who knows.  And even if you don't care for places like silkroad, just realize those places are getting the word out about bitcoin.  Even if it is bad press, people will soon start to realize how many other great characteristics bitcoin has.

But I wouldn't recommend throwing your life savings into bitcoin yet.  It is still going to be a VERY bumpy road.  Just wait until the banks boycott sending money to mtgox like they did wikileaks.  It may not kill bitcoin, but it will certainly extend its adoption period.

Bankcoin will suffer from inflation the same as current fiat currencies do now.  Banks, the government, and fiat currencies are one in the same.  They will vote to increase the limit of bankcoin...just like they vote to increase the limit of fiat currencies now.

This defeats the whole purpose of bitcoin.  I don't see any advantage for a bank to use bankcoin instead of current fiat currencies.  And if the main benefit is the "hard" limit, that can easily be changed with bankcoin because there will be so fewer miners "voting."  Even if more banks tried to compete, the larger banks would just bribe the CA not to recognize them so their IPs aren't given access.  Sound familiar?

Too bad it was during the week.  I definitely would have been down to drive down there & join.  Not to mention I'm trying to convince a friend of mine to write up a story for orlando news about bitcoins & having interviewees setup would probably help.  Oh well, maybe next time.

Isn't there a saying "if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them?"  I think I'd rather have protection than assume the guy breaking into my house/car is a law abiding citizen.