Both. If difficulty doubles, the required hashrate to produce a block in the same amount of time also doubles. Could be either total # of hashes for all miners combined, or # of hashes per CPU. Whatever your hashrate, it has to "change to ensure the blocks are created at a predictable rate."

What did you mean?

"What people wanted is not ever gonna be possible."

So we use a accepted shared view of the truth (Blockchain) to eliminate bias, allowing us to properly educate people.

You're such a cynic kepford. Change is possible, dude! We had women's suffrage, civil rights, free primary education, germ theory of disease.. computers, Internet, solar panels... come on dude, admit it: There is at least a slim chance of ending world poverty without nuclear war.

"The blockchain is transparent, so if there were clear evidence of the transactions you describe, it would be independently verifiable by anyone."

There were eleven 50,000 BTC transactions resulting in a half-million BTC wallet sending out small 100BTC magnitude transfers every few hours. Do you know why?

If the Blockchain is being successfully independently verified then I would expect a single tx 10X bigger than all the other txs in 2011 to be common folklore among all the hardcore hodling old-timers. Why would someone receive 500,000 BTC and then just send small round number txs every few hours. A good guess might say that is logical behavior for someone trying to let such a large transaction mature while spreading out a paper trail by creating outgoing transactions to official, public and/or undeniable personal associates as a defense tactic against who-knows-what unforeseeable attack/theft. I'm saying Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia did that when he sent those 100-300 BTC txs, which can be traced to Najib and his associates, and the 500kBTC incoming transfer can be traced back to Satoshi.

Surely my above claims are easily refuted.

Can someone please spend 15 minutes clicking through the blockchain starting with a search for "largest Bitcoin tx of 2011"? Thanks.

Bitcoin has been subverted into a positive feedback loop for concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. The richer you are the faster you can get more rich. Wealth = power = coercion = crime = a failed state. Pay to play organized crime. That may be the status quo but no one would vote for that.

Sorry, for those of you confused about this, it can be hard to see a problem when your job depends on not seeing the problem.

"I just don't think UBI is needed and even if I thought it was it would fall apart."

If you couldn't afford a bed or a bicycle then would you think the same?

In order to consolidate our thoughts we need smart people to explore the possibilities and recommend best practices using public discussion, computer models/simulations and in-person role-playing with diverse participants chosen randomly. Stuff like that.

How could you say UBI is not needed? How could you decry welfare? Do you think poor people should not receive money created out of thin air, but big finance should continue to do so?

Cuz big finance is continuing to do so. But thanks to Satoshi we can do the same for all the world's poorest and we don't have to ask anyone permission to do it.

All your Bitcoins were created out of thin are and are merely arbitrary 1's and 0's we must have faith to believe in (can't see them). We can create a similar imaginary mental construct that benefits the poorest. We can. Bitcoin proves you can create imaginary money markets. Imagine world peace, please.

No"Bitcoin isn't 'designed to facilitate theft'"

The Balthazar Grecian said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

Therefore inexplicable incompetence must be malice. The completely undocumented source code we are led to believe came from Satoshi is so awful it must be malice, IMHO.

The MtGOX fiasco and whitewashing, is so inexplicable... e.g. why is there no media investigation of the missing 850,000 bitcoins? Do I have to do it myself??? How could Karpeles receive no jail time when he was caught committing fraud unrelated to the exchange theft? Inexplicable coverup = malice.

The 1MDB fiasco.. supposed 6 countries and Malaysia with the full advisement of Goldman Sachs thought it was smart to steal billions of dollars from Malaysia by depositing the money directly into the Prime Minister's personal bank account? Really? You believe that? Or did Satoshi try to help the people of Malaysia and cash himself out to the tune of $1B USD, by selling a million or so BTC to the 1MDB fund.... and that transaction was then covered up and stolen by state level actors? Which seems more likely? It's easy to trace the 11 50,000 BTC transfers and the other 10,000 and 20,000 transfers in the year 2011 to laundering operations involving vanity addresses starting with 1DMB. (Funny right?). Also, MtGox, and a vanity wallet called Ross Ulbricht. But what you will see immediately is a 500,000 Bitcoin transfer that immediately in the ensuing hours and days sends out round number txs in 100, 200, or 300 BTC amounts every few hours. Exactly as Prime Minister Najib was instructed to do by Satoshi, an employee of Goldman Sachs at the time. Those 100-300btc magnitude txs should be able to be easily traced back to individual persons and govt officials cooperating with Najib in full knowledge of the whole Goldman Sachs-Malaysia-Satoshi-1MDB Bitcoin deal to promote the economic development of the Malaysian people.

Bitcoin was definitely designed to do that!

Because that's exactly what Bitcoin is.

The hashrate has to change to ensure the blocks are created at a predictable rate.

"It’s the opposite of fiat systems where the unsustainable gets prolonged indefinitely through coercion."

Sorry. Had to chuckle at this.

Because Satoshi never intended for PoW to be the end-all be-all solution to the double spending problem. How could anyone believe that a cypherphreak trying to implement a workaround to totalitarian power would create something that gives the most money to the most powerful. It's the exact opposite of decentralized (aka p2p). Just ask yourself, does this benefit peers in a p2p network? If the answer is no, then it is not what Satoshi intended.

Satoshi posted a lot about Proof of Stake and Web of Trust, terms that he repeatedly noted had novel definitions. He defined proof-of-stake as the hash of your stake in a given system. Your participation. In a txting app, it's your conversations. Where there exists public and private data. Public data is that which can be agreed upon by other actors (generals), such as your name and phone number and length of time online. Private data is the content of the texts between two parties. If encrypted in an append only hashed timechain, that content can be used to do one-way authentication and signing, which is very useful for circumventing surveillance. This concept can be applied to any p2p app, such as a Bitcoin ledger.

Once the initial network is generated and agreed upon using proof of work, you no longer need to use PoW to ensure byzantine consensus, or perhaps it is not needed at all, if the network is agreed upon in some other way, perhaps by wide publication of the genesis block.

How can anyone mention "$100k per transaction fees" as being logically sound? Obviously that is not how Bitcoin is supposed to work. How does that facilitate "probably there will always be miners willing to accept zero fee transactions" from the whitepaper?

Remember the difficulty is auto adjusting. Obviously everything should be auto adjusting to facilitate all beneficial transaction types. Miners should only be eligible for reward when they have a block that contains sufficient diverse attributes defined such that they facilitate the network goals. Goals like micro transactions, large cheap transactions, time-stamping documents, encrypted communication, fast tx for messaging apps, proof of replication for archival purposes, reputation/reviews for spam/DOS prevention, distributed p2p network health, etc...

When Satoshi wrote one-cpu-one-vote he proffered that as an alternative to one-IP-one-vote in order the prevent large orgs buying up many IPs and getting a disproportionately high voting power. The system should be designed to distribute the wealth and power fairly to each person and use this distributed network to disincentivise concentration of power.

Why are we worried about Cybill attacks? Doesn't the timechain automatically buffer against them? Oh look, here's a transaction signed by this address with a prior sequence (block) number and a prior time, sent from these coins, to recipientX, now here's another transaction spending the same coins but with different attributes. Why would anyone do that in good faith? If only we had a distributed network that could broadcast information about such haxxor attempts to prevent them from being performed secretly. Oh, we do? Why isn't it being used?

Satoshi said the network would ignore invalid transactions automatically, so no need to track bad actors. This is generally true, unless there is a huge state level actor doing a Cybill attack and rewriting a long chain of blocks. Well, this is easily preventable because why did all of the Western hemisphere not hear about any of the last 20 blocks then all the sudden everyone else is spamming us with 20 blocks different from our 20 blocks?? If there is not already coded alarms/logs for such anomalies, then the system was designed to facilitate them.

so... is Bitcoin designed to facilitate theft?

Hey kepford. You said, "I just never hear many principled bitcoiners outline how they think bitcoin becomes the standard money for the world."

Well I'm sorry for that. Here's some principles for ya:

You give every person on earth a UBI =$1250/mo, $15,000/yr. You prorate/backrate(?) a one time genesis award based on the person's age: UBI * age, so a 20yo receives $30,000 and a 60yo receives $90,000, representing a person saving one month's income each year. Most people will accept this as a better deal than their current financial situation. You agree on a cap which is the maximum a single entity can horde, perhaps 1000 * UBI * yr = $15,000,000. If you need more then that, get married, need more, don't kick your kids out of the house. Your root key should be resettable, perhaps with the help of the escrow organizations of your choice, with some type of failsafe based on your SSN or biometrics, so there is no such thing as "not your keys". The system should be gamified using the Bitcoin app (aka nostr) to incentivize good behaviour according to community decisions (hopefully based on the state of the art of scientific consensus) made by small ad hoc local committees formed as needed by lottery (gov't by sortition), with unlimited appeal/review, until all objections have been addressed on public record. If you don't like your community's process, join or start a different one.

If you make the coin's base unit of value equal to some real-world definable object that everyone can/must agree upon by the nature of it's existential manifestation, i.e. it's describable attributes, then the system is less likely to suffer from Tulip Revolution failures. Base it on time, or work hours, or sunlight, or potatoes, or land area, or energy, or persons (how much is a person worth?) or merit or blurg. Personally I like potatoes, because then you can call them potato chits.

I'd love to discuss this more with you guys but I'll end here because my thumbs are getting tired and I'm still a Luddite when it comes to having AI speak for me.

I see a 646 New York area code in the transfer amount: 92(646.576-7072)6 Try calling it; it's a very strange expert locator service.

Google "HBITS escalator". I'm not sure if that's what the automated attendant says, but HBITS is an IT contracting system for NYC. It says if you're interested in working for the city you can contact their contractors directly. They pay $45-$100/hr. Thanks Bitcoin!