Now you can have a FULL list with all the Telegram channels that I have been creating, organized alphabetically

Please subscribe to the news letters and you will receive an email with each new blog post

Thank you for making blockchain and BitCoin technology better known every day.
https://ramonquesada.com/english/telegrams-channels-names-in-alphabetical-order/

The 21 Million Bitcoin Question.
By Rich Apodaca |
Updated April 16th, 2018

"To incentivize early adoption, Satoshi envisioned a payout schedule modeled after a mining operation. Over time, yield decreases until no further value can be extracted. The main problem with this approach is deciding how exactly to cut the block subsidy. There are two main options:

- cut at every block;

- cut at every epoch, where an epoch represents a fixed number of blocks."

https://bitzuma.com/posts/the-21-million-bitcoin-question/

Re: Why 1BTC should equal 10^8 satoshi ?
October 12, 2014, 03:28:14 AM
Merited by LoyceV (2)

I remember this discussion, actually. 

Finney, Satoshi, and I discussed how divisible a Bitcoin ought to be.  Satoshi had already more or less decided on a 50-coin per block payout with halving every so often to add up to a 21M coin supply.  Finney made the point that people should never need any currency division smaller than a US penny, and then somebody (I forget who) consulted some oracle somewhere like maybe Wikipedia and figured out what the entire world's M1 money supply at that time was. 

We debated for a while about which measure of money Bitcoin most closely approximated; but M2, M3, and so on are all for debt-based currencies, so I agreed with Finney that M1 was probably the best measure. 

21Million, times 10^8 subdivisions, meant that even if the whole word's money supply were replaced by the 21 million bitcoins the smallest unit (we weren't calling them Satoshis yet)  would still be worth a bit less than a penny, so no matter what happened -- even if the entire economy of planet earth were measured in Bitcoin -- it would never inconvenience people by being too large a unit for convenience.

And, yeah, I'm Ray Dillinger
@RayDillinger

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=819656.msg9170781#msg9170781

: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Dillinger)
Mon Nov 17 12:03:48 2008

From: Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> To: satoshi@vistomail.com Cc: jamesd@echeque.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com In-Reply-To: <CHILKAT-MID-4e1eec0c-baa7-6633-78e9-91fd9b7353c4@server123>

Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008

"Okay.... I'm going to summarize this protocol as I understand it. I'm filling in some operational details that aren't in the paper by supplementing what you wrote..."

http://diswww.mit.edu/bloom-picayune/crypto/137796

pseudonymous decentralized marketplace
Ray Dillinger bear at sonic.net
Wed Jul 11 16:37:09 EDT 2001
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2001-July/000391.html

Who cares about side-channel attacks?
Ray Dillinger bear at sonic.net
Fri Oct 31 17:33:09 EDT 2008
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014811.html

There are three categories of identity that are useful to
think about.

Category one: public. Real-world identities
are a matter of record and attached to every transaction.

Category two: Pseudonymous. There are persistent "identities" within the system and people can see if something was done by the same nym that did something else, but there's not necessarily any way of linking the nyms with real-world identities.

Category three: unlinkably anonymous. There is no concept of identity,persistent or otherwise. No one can say or prove whether the agents involved in any transaction are the same agents as involved in any other transaction.

Are you claiming category 3 as you seem to be, or category 2?
Lots of people don't distinguish between anonymous and pseudonymous protocols, so it's worth asking exactly what you mean here.


Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Dillinger)
Mon Nov 17 12:05:08 2008
From: Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>
To: satoshi@vistomail.com
http://diswww.mit.edu/bloom-picayune/crypto/137798

Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Satoshi Nakamoto)
Mon Nov 17 12:05:47 2008
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:02:00 +0800
From: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@vistomail.com>
Reply-To: satoshi@vistomail.com
To: bear@sonic.net

Right, it's ECC digital signatures. A new key pair is used for every transaction.

Satoshi Nakamoto

The Cryptography Mailing List

http://diswww.mit.edu/bloom-picayune/crypto/137799

Cryddit
Re: Why 1BTC should equal 10^8 satoshi ?
October 12, 2014

Uhh, I don't remember ever agreeing to keep it secret, but we didn't talk about it on the list either. At that time Hal was elbows-deep in the transaction scripting code, and I was checking Satoshi's work on the crypto on the blockchain architecture.

Finney had a lot to worry about with the transaction scripting and wound up blocking out about a dozen more opcodes than Satoshi had wanted to, but I found essentially nothing wrong with the block structure. I am still freakin' amazed how tight he got that blockchain design.

And, yeah, I'm Ray Dillinger

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=819656.msg9171089#msg9171089

Q4:
"Honestly I’m very surprised Tethercoin isn’t dead yet. What they propose, economically speaking, simply will not work. They got themselves somehow declared to be the only way to get money OUT of a major wallet, which props up their transaction volume, but if the people haven’t already walked away with most of the money they’re supposedly holding but won’t say where, then I’m very surprised".

Interview with Ray Dillinger
Posted on October 1, 2018
https://ramonquesada.com/english/interview-with-ray-dillinger/

"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."

Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...
February 07, 2015

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435

Are you saying that the original plan was to have no limit at all? What would happen if we were just to remove the limit now, instead of making it bigger?


"The limit wasn't part of Satoshi's original plan, but keep in mind that the original plan was at that time very much a work in progress.  I was only involved for about a month back then.  When Hal and Satoshi started talking about involving more people, I dropped it."
Ryan Dillinger

neuronics

Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...
February 07, 2015


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435

Cryddit
Legendary

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=146383

Craig Wright talk at Future of Bitcoin on 30 June 2017 · GitHub
https://gist.github.com/Time02/4b507a444709b3334ee001d1e8c3e812

"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."

Ray Dillinger

https://ramonquesada.com/english/who-is-ray-dillinger/

Min: 16:42
"Anyone knows who bear is?"...

"Craig Wright - Future of Bitcoin talk, Arnhem Netherlands 2017" en YouTube
https://youtu.be/JdJexAYjrDw