The most simplistic.

We hold the limit (stay at 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of decentralization and etc.
The benefit is that it prevents theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.
The downside is it causes a slow down in mass adoption, causes filled blocks, creates higher fees, forces users to use other systems.

or

We increase the limit (higher than 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of currency and etc.
The benefit is that it continues and allows for mass adoption, prevents filled blocks, prevents higher fees, allows users to stay on Bitcoin blockchain.
The downside is it causes the theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.

Blockchain.info is not a payment provider, but that doesn't make it any less susceptible to
government requests for information. In reality, any government can gain, by court order or
legal statute, your information that you willingly (or unwilling) provided to an online site.


"proof they are statutorily empowered to access your data" would refer to countries or governments
were laws exist that allow their citizens information without probable cause, orders, warrants, or the like.
In theory, this could be laws that are used for "fishing expeditions" in tyrannical regimes or even simple
national security laws in Western countries, where you have been flagged for or in a current investigation
such as terrorism.

It all depends on what country you live in. But ultimately, I do not believe Blockchain.info is going to go out of its way
to protect your rights and information, with whatever jurisdiction you are from. If they get a request, they will likely
hand over any info they may be storing for you.

Satoshi Nakamoto wanted an online currency with fundamentals opposite to the current world financial system.
Satoshi Nakamoto programmed BTC to be a scarce coin for payment transfers, which has speculative properties.
BTC coin cap is 21 million and current supply is 15 million, over 7+ years.

Vitalik Buterin created an online contracting system with fundamentals consistent with the current world financial system.
Vitalik Buterin programmed ETH to be a non-scarce token to execute contracts, which has no speculative properties.
ETH coin cap is unlimited and current supply is 77 million, over 6+ months.


Both are two different concepts and are the creations of two different ways of looking at life.

For this discussion, some would argue that there is an important distinction between a "transaction" and a "confirmation".
Bitcoin's ability of relaying transactions is almost instantaneous.

The real question is, when are the "transactions" considered a "final" or "non-reversible" payment?
In Bitcoin, it is when the transaction is included within 1 block (or 6 blocks), which is usually an average of 10 minutes.
All processors are different, but average like VISA are between 15 to 60 days (estimate).

So the issue isn't increasing Bitcoin's transaction ability, but increasing Bitcoin's ability to fit more transactions for confirmation.

The debate about how to fit more transactions in each block for confirmation, is called the "Block Size Debate".

Edit: If you are asking for faster than avg 10 mins per block, then as others have said, Lightning Network and etc is the answer.

1000BTC is called an adolescent common bottlenose dolphin.

Those are not rules, those are descriptions.
The community can use the Trust System anyway they deem to be appropriate.

The Trust System is mostly controlled and maintained by the members on the Default Trust List.
If you view their comments on others accounts, I've sure they aren't following "the rules" you cite.

Lol! You would get negative trust for being a troll, Dorito.
There are no rules for giving trust.

Please provide link to "official forum rules" as to providing trust.

There are no real rules as to this issue.
The Trust System is not regulated by the Mods.

There is nothing you can do about invalid negative trust,
other than request the person who gave it to you, to reconsider.

Chances are if you received negative trust, it falls under one of the following:
1. broke a forum rule,
2. attempting to scam,
3. have scammed,
4. begging,
5. being a troll
6. send pm solicitations,
7. spams with or without sig campaign
8. sold account
9. etc etc etc

There are may reasons why to give negative trust, outside of scamming members.


Edit: added the following

There are no rules/guidelines for giving trust, that I'm aware of, except for:
1. do not trust farm
2. do not use your alts to give your other alts or main account, positive trust.

But both there two above, are also not regulated by Mods.

Interesting idea.
It does indeed seem to be like a "panic tax" during a massive sell off.
This would in theory, slow down the sell off and allow users and miners
time to think things through.


I would like to add that the bitcoin market is not like the stock markets.
BTC is the only traded asset here and if the price gets too low in sell offs,
miners are potentially bankrupt and are forced to shut down.

Of course, over some time the miners could start up again,
but that is assuming the massive sell off isn't related to a discovered
fundamental problem in Bitcoin that is not correctable and kills the experiment.

If that happens, no "panic tax" can stop the inevitable.

But overall, I agree with your theory.

I think I getting too confused now.

Originally, I assumed the term "double-spend" was for the duplication of a coin, and was comparable to the Bitcoin definition of "double-spend".
But no, according to common Bitcoin understanding, a "double-spend" is "a transaction that spends the same input as spent in another transaction."

So now I say, what is the definition of a "spend"?

If your version is correct, then the common understanding of the Bitcoin's definition of "double-spend" is wrong.
Since respectable members of the community say that a "double-spend" is "a transaction that spends the same input as spent in another transaction",
then the terminology of the word "spend" must be read in that context, thus a "spend" is really just a push or a broadcast.

Even though I think the term "spend" should convey that a tx was confirmed, it seems it does not.
And even though I would think the term "spend" would also convey a transfer of goods (coffee), it does not.

Basically, since terms are used loosely, a "spend" could also be interchangeably used with "push" and "broadcast".

Thus, a Bitcoin "double-spend" could also be called a "double-push" or a "double-broadcast", in theory.

Have I gone off the deep end here?  

Edit: fixed redundant - not doesn't

Lol. I don't know anything anymore, but I think from the prior comments above of double-spending
(especially the definition knightdk provided me from the Bitcoin.org Developers glossary),
your definition of "spend" would not be correct as well. So I'm guessing there will be no consensus here, lol.

Even though in general I agree with your reasoning, I think the counter argument is as follows:
A "spend" is not when a tx has at least a single confirmation, but is any tx that is broadcasted.
This interpretation of "spend" does not change whether it is in a block or still pending in the mempool.

So according to this definition of "spend", it could really be considered a "push" and could be used interchangeably.
So in Bitcoin, when we are talking about "double-spending", we really mean "double-pushing", but call it "double-spending" anyway.

Lol.

OK, well I don't claim to be a Bitcoin expert, I only came upon Bitcoin in Late 2013.
My understanding comes from what I have read previously.

Maybe the bitcoin wiki page should be made more clear then.

To me, it seems to use the term "double spend" incorrectly at times when trying to define it.
It makes it seem Bitcoin "prevents" double spending, when according to the new definition,
Bitcoin actually allows "double spending", but only one spend will be prevented from being confirmed.

Is there a place online where a glossary of official terms for Bitcoin is available?  
Like what a "spend" is actually defined as.

Edit: fixed typo and added the word "official terms"

The following is my understanding, the basis for my above statement, and may be incorrect.

When Satoshi and other earlier designers of digital currencies worried about "double-spending" in their systems,
I was under the assumption they were referring to an actual duplication of the digital currency in a standard transaction.

Satoshi overcame this long lasting problem of duping in other systems, by creating the blockchain system.
As a result, when an attempt at a double-spend occurs, it can't be considered a true or successful "double-spending" as before
because only one of the spends will ever be valid, in the Bitcoin system. Before Bitcoin, there were two valid spends, aka a "double-spend".

Prior to the blockchain, a double-spend's definition was the actual duping of the money.
Now, you are saying the commonly accepted double-spend's definition seems to be only when anyone pushs the same outputs twice.

According to the bitcoin wiki:https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending

By the above explanation, I assumed when "Bitcoin protects against double spending" it was in regards to my definition.
When the explanation uses the term "double spending", I think the context is with my definition.

Either I'm very wrong or giving this too much thought.

First off my chart is directly from Poloniex, the largest and most reputable exchange for trading ETH.
Kraken's technical problems are unrelated to my chart data.

Second, your chart which uses USD doesn't exist since there are no large ETH/USD markets other than Kraken.
Which is an exchange you yourself point out as having data problems, but seems to be what your chart is based upon.

I'll repeat myself. There was a dump and everyone who was trading then, clearly saw that.
They all have short positions set, ready for the next dump, which should happen as soon as
the ETH bot is done sucking in more noobs.

Beware and sell your ETH now.

Here is a nice image that shows the "non-existent dump" on the 25th of February.
You are using the USD markets, which are total crap. Majority of ETH is bought and sold through BTC.



Get ready for more dumps.  
The ETH Devs gotta pay their bills, so they are going to need more BTC soon.

My comment should have been read in its whole, not as separate parts.

I was referring to double-spends with both txs being confirmed.
I don't see double-spends prior to a single confirmation being a "successful" double-spend.
There are potentially thousands of double-spend attempts a day.
Peter Todd even made a program that's only purpose is to double-spend very easily.

I think a "successful double-spend" comes when the blockchain accepts both tx as valid spends.
Which would also be the end of the Bitcoin experiment.

Satoshi designed the blockchain to prevent actual double-spending of coins.

So, in that light, I still stand behind my original post.

I just like to point out to OP that there has never been a successful double-spend.

You may be able to send the same output txs twice, but only one will be confirmed and the other denied.
Thus, the BTC is only actually spent once.

A double-spend in when both are successful and if that happened successfully would mean Bitcoin is very broken.

Even though Google has not made overt statements in support or against Bitcoin/bitcoin,
the Google Dev channel on Youtube did release this video last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN7cmfoH06w

Hey, just an update here.
On the 23 of February I said ETH would dump either the 25th or 26th (see above).
ETH users should check the charts today. No surprise there.
If you didn't see this coming, you haven't traded alts long enough.

See you all in the troll boxes.

Oh, this is great news then. I had no idea a bot would handle all that.
I thought members here would have to investigate on an individual basis.

Can I ask when the bot "went down"?

I only began noticing them within the last 1.5 to 2 weeks or so.
Never had any problems with the random useless comments from sig holders before that.
Now I wake up from nightmares about yobit commenters.

I await the day of the glorious mass banning.