Bump.
Not sure re. credibility (probably more posturing), but this is what it would look like if the chickens come home to roost (to the luxurious Chinese chicken coops bitcoin data centers):
Yet another failed FUD post on r/btc (they're talking about it like this is actually happening). You also don't even know how to properly attach URLs. Anyhow, that post is just a proposal (or extension?) made by a random nobody on that Chinese website. There is no sign of any big pools being behind this. How about we wait for some actual 'people' to voice their opinions before we jump to conclusions on this one? Here's the proper link from r/Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
How you tried testing this from another account (in the case that you do have one)? I've tried to reproduce the results and have failed so far, this is what I see 10+ minutes after using 'mark read': 
Have you tried to reproduce this in another section? I'll ping theymos just in case. Try reproducing it under different intervals and with different threads, that should help identify the cause quickly. |
|
|
|
So would wallets like BitGo (2 of 3) be considered as online wallets or clients in themself? Because they do have a local client, but they still require a level of trust, in that BitGo/pay won't team up with their key storage service.
That's a good question and I'd consider that specific wallet a 'mix'. Keep in mind that there aren't that many wallets with similar functionality (at least that I'm aware of). I think that it depends on what the user has problems with. If the user does only use the online interface then the thread should go into 'online wallets', otherwise it should go into 'alternative clients'. |
|
|
|
thank you, yes there is a "change" category under the addresses, where i can find that address...
Exactly, there's no need to worry. You can spend that balance as well if you choose to. I usually specify my own change address, but I use a different wallet (Bitcoin Core). If you have any more questions, feel free to ask here or PM me directly. |
|
|
|
Technically, "online wallets" should be under the "Development and Technical Discussion", under "Alternative clients", am I right?
No, they are anything but 'alternative clients'. You should read the description of the newly added section and you will understand what I mean. Here's the quote: Discussion about online wallets. Warning: online wallets are banks that you are trusting -- for a trustless wallet, you need to run your own wallet software.
They aren't trustless (you have to trust a 3rd party and they can block transactions e.g. Coinbase and gambling), thus they shouldn't be in 'alternative clients'. If I funnel all our adult customers and stores to the forums can you make the subforum?
Would that necessarily be better for your customers, stores and the forum? If so, then I'm certain that there would be a subforum if there is enough demand for it ("supply" of such threads). |
|
|
|
Is that correct, or why is that? I am using Electrum...
Nothing to worry about. You don't know how Bitcoin works exactly, but I'll only summarize the important parts. Let's say that you want to send 0.2 BTC from address X which contains 0.3 BTC (1 input). You send 0.2 BTC to address Y (0.3-0.2-fees) and you have a remaining balance of ~0.1 BTC, but that balance also has 'to go somewhere'. This is what we call 'change'. The other address can either be specified by the user or it will be automatically picked by the wallet. You should see that address in Electrum (I'm not sure how it generates initial addresses though).
Useful resources (I highly recommend that you read them): InputOutputChange |
|
|
|
Depends on whether your work involves building or destroying. jbreher is hell-bent on destroying a productive (not to mention innovative) system, so he's no better than those sociopathic bullies that bat food out of a stranger's hand and then walk off down the street laughing at their hilarious "joke".
Fair point. At least he doesn't have a 24/7 shift on his account.  So then what does that mean? The SegWit code has been released ages ago. Do you mean the version of Bitcoin Core that merges the code? It's sure to have a whole bunch of new features completely unrelated to SegWit (mostly bugfixes) and anyway nobody can be sure exactly what features it will have until it is actually released.
If you've seen his posts anywhere else before, you'd know that he calls it the "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset". I can only assume that the changes are too complex for himself and thus they must be complex for everyone. "Alternative node implementations"? Is that what we're calling altcoins now?
That's what altcoin supporters mostly call them, yes. That part about "several Core supporters deriding.." is also false. We have Hearn (who is definitely not a Core supporter), Garzik and Gavin. All of these people have barely contributed anything to the development in the recent times. That's to be expected. SegWit bashers are weird people.
Apparently only their (wrong) way is the right way in their eyes. |
|
|
|
Here is the bitcoin powerstructure:
Bitcoin Nodes = They are like the accountants of bitcoin , as they verify the integrity of the blockchain, and maintain the technical stability, they are rarely affected by the other 5, and mostly act as observers on these issues.
There are the 6 powers in bitcoin, and we need all of them. Centralization is not an option.
I really think that the controversial HF supporters either do not run nodes or are fine with Bitcoin being more centralized. There are already complaints of people who can't catch up on very inexpensive solutions, about reindex and synchronization taking long (even though libsecpk increased the speed drastically). Even if we are talking about a short period of time (let's say 1 year) and 1.75 MB blocks on average, we are talking about more than 90 GBs of space and that is just the start. IIRC there was a presentation (Scaling 2015?) about the possibility of a 'future' where new node users aren't able to catch up to the network with decent hardware(?). The few Core technicians want to be the ultimate regulators who define what blocksize and fees are best for all other Bitcoin users and the network. Im pretty sick of all centralized regulations, it hardly brings anything good and just make the regulators very powerfull to define the fees and how many people can ever use Bitcoin, all by artifically setting blocksize limit parameter.
You are stating this out of subjective bias, because you want one thing and they want another one. Ultimately the network decides. If people wanted someone else to decide what is the better approach (yes, a 2 MB block size limit is also "centralized regulation" by your definition) then we you and almost everyone else would be using implementations like Classic. Even if Peter R is wrong about the fee market (and I'm not saying he is), there's no reason for central planning decades in advance.
You mean Peter R Charlatan who came out of nowhere with his "fancy graphics"? |
|
|
|
I've outlined a plausible scenario under which deep-state actors created Bitcoin, not as a honeypot NWO currency, but as an inevitable consequence of advancing computer science that must be front-ran, before some guy-in-a-basement cypherpunk comes up with it themselves. Of course, under that scenario, Satoshi being some deep state banking oligarch is still pretty inconsequential, as Bitcoin was clearly rushed out before any tenable long-term design had been established (and the Satoshi coins may end up unspendable as a result of that rush/oversight)
I guess that I haven't read that post, but it doesn't matter since you've made a fair point. I guess it is only rational to say that there's a possibility of this even though it is quite slim. I also agree with the second sentence. @Lauda - I empathize w/ Greg now. Go through some of my recent posts here, I listed Greg as preferred Satoshi candidate of mine.
Well, we've had a lot of candidates now, ring from Nick Szabo, Gavin, Peter Todd, to the "self-proclaimed" C.Wright. Maxwell is a decent candidate indeed. You are correct about not having linked writing styles conclusively - although I'm not sure even the best stylometry software can do that. I haven't run the software yet b/c IRL duties; when I made the post last night, it was really late. I will also agree w/ you that my initial post is just a musing - I'm not betting Greg is Satoshi one way or another. I just think it would make sense if he were and that it is plausible.
I'd definitely like to see the results of those tests in the case that you do end up doing them. This could help your investigation. Wow, very convincing article. I told everybody when craig 'came out' as being satosshi I was 95% sure, now, after reading that, 99% sure craig AKA midmagic is our Satoshi.
If you're serious, unfortunately there's something wrong with your comprehension skills. |
|
|
|
I don't know what others would do, but I think it puts a totally different spin on the last year. I could very easily empathize with his various positions if he were to be Satoshi.
Why the 'last year' in particular? I think this would be a case of subjective bias. You currently can't empathize with his various positions, but would be able to if he was satoshi? Also, Lauda, I take it you don't find the Midmagic = Greg part that much of a stretch?
I don't. However, I wouldn't say that you have conslusive proof there. I'd say you have some circumstantial 'proof' (although I don't know about the resemblance in the writing style as I have never done such an analysis myself). Again, this is all from a position of love and admiration.
I guess that it is fine if the intent is to not attack him. |
|
|
|
Step 1) Follow the forum rules. Step 2) Stop making threads in the wrong sections (i.e. you haven't read the rules nor the guidelines). Step 3) Educate yourself on behavior that is frowned upon by the community. I doubt he will remove your negative feedback.
The feedback is appropriate. |
|
|
|
Do you know what is the point of it all at the end of the day?
The point is wasting everyone's time, especially his. It is how you deny that makes the difference.
It makes zero difference.
The point is to understand where this all came from a little better. People are inherently inquisitive.
Okay: That's the point, fine. However, what are the chances for him to admit this regardless of whether he is satoshi or not? I'd say very close to 0. I just mean some folks think BTC is a govt project - the blockchain is the world's best surveillance system/honeypot
Those folks need an upgraded version of tinfoil hats. Either way, if the answer is "yes, greg is Satoshi" - either in whole or in part - I'm impressed as a person could get and want to shake his hand.
That does make me curious though: If this turned out to be true, would the people that have been attacking Gregory stop because he's Satoshi?  |
|
|
|
I think that the Author definitely deserves more views/likes and tips. Initially he didn't even leave addresses for tips. I assume that even he didn't realize how good the produced video was. Additionally, he can slowing start working on part 2 due to the soft-fork DOS vector. People will surely need more popcorn for the upcoming events. |
|
|
|
None of the coup-attempt Developers noticed this, even though they were most incentivised to do so. lol
I'd like to hear their failed attempts at gather excuses as to why they didn't notice it. Either they have failed to recognize this, or they haven't looked at it at all (which tells us more than we need to know). It's pretty sad really, jbreher, all you can do is dance around like a child sticking your tongue out. Why not do something productive with your "life"?
Doesn't working count as being productive? |
|
|
|
|
These questions are pointless if you have a brain and consider the following:
1) If he is Satoshi, he will deny it.
2) If he isn't Satoshi, he will deny it.
What is the point of such article? To waste time? To get agencies to investigate Maxwell?
|
|
|
|
I wonder how this will affect Bitcoin in that region. Does anyone have any better insight in this bill? Should it be considered a positive or negative? However, it seems that there's still a chance for it to get rejected: The bill isn't enshrined in law yet, however. Once passed by both chambers, the bill will then be sent to Governor Pat McCrory for consideration.
|
|
|
|
Wow all the hype and it's not going to help clean up the mem pool right away, I'm I getting that right?
No, you're not getting this right. This has nothing to do with "help clean up the mempool". Like the title says. The current iteration of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset does not fix the O(n^2) hashing problem. At least according to Peter Todd: We haven’t actually fixed the O(n²) signature hashing problem yet, although we’re fairly confident that we can, and there’s a open pull-req implementing the cache that we need. While I must admit that I was unaware of it at first, I don't see this as something problematic especially if you consider the last part. I've read some parts of that review last night and it seems very well done. Might be worth a discussion, donchathink?
Maybe. However, don't be surprise if you see a lot of 'unusual' accounts joining in to bash Segwit. I'm kidding. I just thought that with all the press in the BTC space of its implementation going live, we would actualy see it working and cleaning up he pool. That's all, just disappointing it's not ganna work out that way right now.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. There's no reason for it "not to work out that way right now". |
|
|
|
If the Government decides or is pressured to shut down the mining farms, which are just a few in number, wouldnt the network go down?
No, the network would most certainly not go down. Do you even know how a P2P network works? Is there enough miners to continue verification's?
Yes. Will miners voluntarily shut down at the halving and if the value of Bitcoin went back to $300ish?
Why would they do that? Mining is a 'self-regulated' cycle. If it becomes unprofitable, some are going to stop mining -> difficulty will reduce -> mining is profitable again. One possibility of bitcoin shutting down is within the internet shutting down itself for good. But that's nearly impossible.
If that were the case, Bitcoin would be the least of 'our' problems. It would be easy. Just shut down the internet.
That's anything but easy. |
|
|
|
Yeah I agree with this and I wouldn't normally start a thread in the Meta section about it, but I've been seeing many of these threads and just found it very weird that most of the people participating in the thread don't just call the user out.
Here's what you should consider: Why would signature spammers harm the ground that they're using to farm up their post count? It's possibly that some of the senior members have noticed it and reported it, but it just hasn't been handled yet. |
|
|
|
|
You know, the best course of action (when you find someone suspicious) is to either report them using the Report-to-moderator function or reporting them directly to a moderator (via PM) for evaluation. Users keep opening threads about this kind of users, even though it isn't something special (as we've dealt with a lot of these cases).
The thread is pretty much useless and a quick analysis of the user shows that their posts are of no value. I thank you for finding the user. I will push this case to someone who can handle it.
~Lauda
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
