How much it cost and time frame needed for developing platforms like coinbase e.t.c. More than you have, if you are asking that question on an Internet forum.
Then we have these super-cheap "exchanges" and platforms you can find on the internet where you'd probably get a copycat of some exchange with lots of flaws and you just won't know where to start from without a good team behind your project. IIRC, I've seen some $50-200 exchanges for sale even here on BTCTalk. If you want something serious, that's a very bad idea. Security is the top priority for any crypto exchange imo. It is why my above answer is not just snark: This is how users wind up losing money. Nowadays with rampant KYC nonsense, it is also how their dox wind up being traded on underground criminal markets. Somebody posting on an Internet forum to price out this type of project, with no idea of what work is involved, should ipso facto not even be thinking about starting an exchange—not even dreaming about it. A good Development and Technology discussion from two years ago: Bad Code Has Lost $500M of Cryptocurrency in Under a Year.
I cannot resist: Put it at 150K$ and 18 months time frame before releasing version 1.1
OR
200K$ and 12 months for an aggressive project with more high skill devs. If I budget for an aggressive pregnancy with nine highly skilled mothers, can I make a baby in one month? At least, that is the business schedule for the prematurely released baby-1.1.0, which will be deprecated with the release of rebranded Baby 2.0. We keep its DNA in git, so that the dev team of mothers can pull patches into their own decentralized clone repositories. |
|
|
|
Surveillance and spying on another level. We are turning this place into quite the police-state.  Lauda has always been a principled advocate of privacy; and given the odious trolling by an idiot with an axe to grind against ChipMixer, her concern is not uncalled for. That said, I must observe that any stats being compiled by persons on this thread must have already been subjected to much more sophisticated analysis by actual police-state mass surveillance entities. Outside “Timelord’s” fantasy world, it is not as if government agencies are n00bs who will say, “ Wow, there is a forum thread listing people who are engaged in online commerce. Hurr durr, we had no idea!” Amateur surveillance of publicly available OSINT data is of lesser concern to me here. But it is of concern; and I should hope that to protect themselves against anything from harassment by nosy trolls to real-life Bitcoin armed robbery, anybody advertising ChipMixer should know privacy best practices: Register and post exclusively through Tor, avoid leaking personally identifiable information, and— mix all payments received!For my part, if I were a ChipMixer campaign member (which I am not), then I would ask DarkStar_ if he would pay me directly in ChipMixer chips. A ChipMixer voucher code is effectually a quasi-banknote, payable to the bearer on demand. It could be immediately redeemed, merged with other voucher codes, held in the form of a new voucher code, and then later split and withdrawn. If this is done right, then both timing and subset sum analysis would be infeasible. Blockchain spies watching outputs from ChipMixer would have no way of knowing that a financial transaction occurred off-chain. Yes, that is basically using ChipMixer as a quasi-bank. I don’t like trusting them or anybody else for privacy; but I do trust them to not steal money. I myself have trusted them with much more than the amounts of campaign payments; and anyway, anybody who has a problem dogfooding ChipMixer should probably not be advertising their service. If (and only if) dealing with such a reputable party as DarkStar_, I would have no problem accepting payment in the form of a Chip voucher code sent to me by PGP-encrypted message. I would immediately exchange it for a fresh voucher code. Although such a form of payment may cause misplaced cries about “transparency”, I would also expect that of all people, ChipMixer advertisers (!) should be aware of why blockchain transparency is not only overrated, but foolish. WTF kind of braindead drooling idiot considers it a good thing to publish a business’ financial transaction records for the entire world!? Anybody making that stupid “transparency” argument is invited to publish his own bank and credit card statements online, in an immutable, append-only P2P-network database shared globally by anonymous parties. —Also invited to install a 24/7 public webcam in his own bedroom, just so we can all make sure that he had nothing to hide. On the same grounds, plus to avoid on-chain transaction fees, I also suggest that campaign managers should consider using Lightning Network for payments. |
|
|
|
I did not bother to read the whole thread, which is now nearly 10 pages. Did I miss anything?
Yes, you did. The thread is 10 pages because there is stuff going on here, despite the ridiculous title. If you have not read the whole topic, or at least a few pages, then you should not write here. University professors of the sciences regularly receive e-mails from cranks claiming to have invented perpetual motion machines, free energy devices, simple cures for cancer, etc., etc. (I know this, because I used to have someone forwarding those to me for my amusement.) Would you blame them for not wasting their time reading things that are facially incredible and, moreover, presented in the manner of arrogant ignorance? The topic title, “brute-forcing public keys at amazing speed 2.2 PH/s on CPU”, is not only ridiculous because of the “2.2 PH/s” claim that I parodied: Nobody who knows anything whatsoever about elliptic curve cryptography would ever talk about “brute-forcing public keys”. It is stunningly ignorant. I say that, having some history here of pointing out that Bitcoin’s secp256k1 has a 128-bit security level. I made that thread because I was sick and tired of people yammering about how long it would take to bruteforce a 2 256 keyspace. If an attacker were to use a bruteforce attack, trying keys one by one, that would require on the order of 2256 work. (I here ignore the restrictions on valid secp256k1 keys, which reduces that to about 2255.5; the difference would be negligible in practical terms, and it’s anyway not here relevant.)
However, no serious attacker would ever try to bruteforce elliptic-curve crypto. Rather, it is estimated that breaking Bitcoin’s 256-bit keys with the best known attacks should require around 2128 work [...] Although I didn’t read this whole thread, I skimmed Etar’s posts from his post history page. It is easy, because he has been exclusively posting in this thread since 2020-04-07. Before that, his last post was in a shitcoin thread on 2019-02-06. I also noticed what others here seem not to, at least not in the first few pages which I did read: Etar appears to have no history of posting in D&T, at least not that I could find on a cursory check. He used to post prolifically in shitcoin threads. In 2017–19, the account had several large posting gaps; then it was dormant for over a year. It seems to have the same style as before; but that is easy, when the style is basically gibberish. Anyway, the account suddenly woke up and immediately, exclusively started pushing this thread in a know-it-all belligerent manner. Let me get this straight: OP, who has a past history of prolific posting in shitcoin threads before some long post history gaps, suddenly “woke up” and started posting in Development & Technology with wild claims backed only by semantic games and insulting the intelligence of people who know far more than he does. @lauda, @ nullius
You are just bored and you decided to flood here? Back at you. Post history is the kind of thing that Lauda would notice... Don't try to teach me how to use the trust system, you have no idea what you are talking about in that aspect. ...indeed.
The fact that I challenged him to find 16 specific private keys in a 264 range and he succeeded clearly demonstrates that he has accomplished something. If you want to know the details, you'll have to read the thread. Eh... This is well know since the beginning of elliptic curve usage in crypto. But we count the number of group operation really performed (not the size of the range divided by time). For instance in my BTCollider which use the DP method (also in O(sqrt(n))), I get 27.9 Mips (GeForce GTX 1050 Ti) for 80bit collision search. That means that I really compute 27.9M group operation and hash per second. It solves 80bit collision in 14h30 (in average). Note that in that case, it have to compute an EC mult for each group operation. https://github.com/JeanLucPons/BTCColliderYou guys are so smart here, I even feel awkward. So... after others drew him an introductory map of methods better than brute-force, Etar managed to find your challenge keys in a 2 64 range? It is manifestly unimpressive for someone with this attitude: ~ if you do not know how, this does not mean that it is impossible. I'm not going to post programs, source codes or algorithms. It's just a fact. ~ I think yo do not understand what are you talking... And if you do not understand the topic,
But it seems like some people just don’t have enough manners in communication. You are not one to be lecturing others on “manners in communication”. Your rudeness is as bad as your conceited ignorance. |
|
|
|
Etar, you are funny person.
Yes, you just overestimate the rate. It is known that due to pollard kanagaroo method it is possible to perform less bruteforce operations. And roughly it is square root from the total length.
You just count the operations which are not actually performed. You use the method which is good due to birthday paradox. However, due to this methond you just need less operations.
So, your actual speed is not 2.2Ph/s but the square root from this amount, i.e. approx. 47 Mh/s in total. I did few optimizations (commited to github), I reached 13.6M giant steps of 2^30 per second on my Xeon X5647 2.93GHz with 12GB of RAM.
It solves the 16 keys of the odolvlobo's set in 3:35:53 from scratch, I mean without any precomputation.
If I convert to the Etar's unit: It does 14.6 PKey/s. Newsflash: I, nullius, have written a very small shell script that can do over 100 trillion operations per second on a single core of an ancient 3.3 GHz CPU! Here is the source code, including a benchmark, on a Linux system (FreeBSD will be a bit different): $ echo '1048576^1024' | time -p bc -sql
12425423456181365279925387080786307311597595610838347638850287747623\
60861068891428772905674656322752135427515054673539621055134262585183\
19758974258574370940046385769635382008544820357548872424501984530330\
07298954744930507666995488232800628320702554659038871038462856168892\
86081195063491219050898500215483033932486747164814339647481138414482\
46888917028564677545436961362035603246262743087461966109644786182741\
43113267232859737251775529839066894535312855298925318702786023730327\
19869958099828161372489304583433717069182227464187121063444543113687\
08508016817415834539561007557262362984166823937246086587688258356477\
00836976266833112093887575424667085600301886904838933510219463816130\
80902598605780629569631487856056084824428655665090823522085781848136\
90257281434662352060481338229879814647807435854905171792202651978347\
81576216598469678835525935558383051575769346443249751553902761298124\
16603376553195639027589983660665862094399483358459126504039467900670\
57848445654106692228540961696646160891611201176550731263658980952921\
79661180975723679821903326940014763241580326424148011608373928415839\
89799573086647874776450926010315260838864367653687522517200666183052\
78046681072569421716140184999814186049906737726847623187904023921869\
96493297393422826404482175417711937716534206615666157396727516750219\
91851182241223465341934177526160075853973517749105067707179469601845\
88330671948952814804211541112010786462301589154313085414717834325712\
13484577645520690543228926603184248994369361889663953324943538057692\
09142925292218241559518002462550357529467477707118089331738992523144\
12851389177004142395041260697284263133880780366217511217984043484829\
53325405978696911189665650780516493277780136150107415182697715538908\
88939125791581583722002310729942726531722583550670593647217988951143\
92521808675257335863861193806735924700446683310178995467034389623843\
34637501209612847511049916048620985432493518099051493506017025211609\
28445644828520351429402092953664848212010413254950535181316532179730\
47923723479492788069287202544924191902788739261046871261774192771595\
98592964369820978291410445759190143932392603554581408191522473988300\
78968537639501149013877800816286561791691358636572217216223056875928\
17092366529353468311118760692178408198029055674402652184529251245244\
02444158263061794917079395096000934259933755433146079126284408690042\
38324933687603968469583639260051178509345170832212772332066117998429\
78113094510577400457305062492992418480494715522786170957895839161090\
90679234697955146377040610964269301216587823655778069747692220154167\
70472400404041730870427533141385209154167773633401949758275582595580\
27019512304014991243449078715269261165419536452307568016928400885256\
23776177665575668603825365845156272635985606083707288176434594230550\
63821924320631190657490067933585520675018760684824866176435920685678\
63296909178438390152244400222647826063647022042540400075485011545999\
00189922038235751253299117681279273929701919536924732136567627766777\
04272072134504254916928323201471851352779331900325117027741482200181\
92390633227909351864687090818155037147671652619953709590048531015638\
67766944930820904022173238020823903767522872288256850258417608533098\
55710889239543384650225162736547201843957566299847464495309572962950\
42100547721511026509080617441578235291230797585596956723791898048054\
94393551619189003705862052625203047394451564786087506671990059650588\
42311700375195922932824912529284060788340967215716848525338227678858\
31002874066317264714873448648393414928386389626018123213950936837951\
21684530567458009683534343813278777818354930730330893607406282866925\
70103938566958665744906496118155917745662805567050399327736908498724\
43501504905974334406632067569317805770368874333462501444598418238980\
06216784554109955223039089466808238818647459407144324415209786295284\
85351735941250780778945454134699359309040121089264637439201843749119\
15314754026062773120219884614094334344501797490773975165855473939626\
21196092140724536492766178184954443337984925556703373475742985168021\
17883078934435817288096762052976538997318141223726183848768580350589\
51200814398904661260693065337549329110975358618511651893597017063680\
49524900823342544481257688601563369725945461590068162007616574017948\
20914771999143977962015245639168441997258587765506763767166710832557\
71563537685088458448130330050803042730162103745712401339034512242847\
09907124547717119635576597246015627200917541559241502943454956637305\
93422940574002248679572906693549431041616952024928826004627897641216\
24770138766738991174439422719554351731082128344265526579459209824096\
26455027947494463143520489497270848150431960954940852601300917188450\
83650067617931857392960118807817462708184256574641193504040258930891\
99839012206942405624559164212070339133396667428983146045638492533064\
03158572693118328234068512101574762869748178279573282408346844832649\
81933372857871230260859650454635805876968974210471318739872847006616\
00804924005284963470674464976828185259204561264958120568094640836916\
06837889924231208724461928878298859310406116888954935403060987516114\
18405904888301595242442948380076830270819668592368944902754888707385\
35204279102855717837455807640171757260262847344547505722807775030875\
94359812363435941904987045950244172865748098743633724075503552976884\
62784080317728680909109997117711330509573013343458585365228551129794\
81049484143528284230564635011417106533259692707337253646177547883252\
44686207799941805384827372103287633228795533147652926838400042889746\
45173471725823456319919737251506683847696994908372466903589572209409\
39398547770207563852186420979082694689548292795391486301958732319406\
71045025668526409833244577121221967764239502649649279354614518521237\
21869340311444598473461599506348960422697831023422091976250909540756\
61895743811394436416668441435649266854835929322540019881764717021766\
29212632259442546037609341731335269657620305531233672864805604650871\
85427651321373449080020221012906959833983342655018947268462816668916\
24294703168898855422382676912113909067081031599264999514935027284486\
39503819472854481747533388916773509467027133785685914059820113289324\
61413428025585667367075371092228092827478558233432174901584085487469\
46201737657601518077611371103354312093969464251033488916198666142138\
7618179306677175709500343297535791418285490176
real 0.01
user 0.01
sys 0.00
Well, you see, I realized that an exponentiation is just a bunch of multiplications. In this case, 1024 multiplications—and each of those multiplications is 1,047,576 additions. Thus, I have done 1,073,741,824 additions in 0.01 seconds. But wait! If expressed in tally-style unary units, each operand of each of those additions is 1,048,576 additions of the number 1. Thus, in my units, this counts as 1,125,899,906,842,624 operations in 0.01 seconds. Ergo, >100 trillion operations per second on a CPU that is almost nine years old. A genius, am I. Sadly, I am still only in the “tera” range; but surely, if I were to play semantic games a bit more, I could boost myself into the “peta” range as OP did—or even beyond him, into the “exa” range.
This is well know since the beginning of elliptic curve usage in crypto.
But we count the number of group operation really performed (not the size of the range divided by time). Soooo... Let me get this straight: OP, who has a past history of prolific posting in shitcoin threads before some long post history gaps, suddenly “woke up” and started posting in Development & Technology with wild claims backed only by semantic games and insulting the intelligence of people who know far more than he does. I did not bother to read the whole thread, which is now nearly 10 pages. Did I miss anything? I will give a final explanation of how this works.
*************************************** Extraordinary claims backed by poorly-written explanations riddled with semantic games are the mark of either a crackpot or a scammer. Take your pick. I think yo do not understand what are you talking...
Clearly you're looking to fool people who don't, sadly for you I'm not one of them. Though the fact that you don't recognize that I do is odd... |
|
|
|
Signing time: 2020-04-28 22:49:29; timestamp block height: 628068The timestamped file:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Bitcoin Forum name: nullius
Bitcoin Forum userid: 976210
PGP primary key: C2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C
# Ten most-recent Bitcoin block hashes:
628065 2020-04-28T22:40:07Z 000000000000000000116889930ff82e953c08be1746a13c357c9adf6df55d99
628064 2020-04-28T22:09:24Z 00000000000000000000a06d8c2b6614ed2084933842274cbff1f4eea6d3b8c2
628063 2020-04-28T22:08:28Z 00000000000000000009bb81521ddca5140c499191a6cac3cf48f66ae28d96e2
628062 2020-04-28T22:07:43Z 0000000000000000000a16e967a48b52313ec51f8a3510dd1b2baa7929a02aef
628061 2020-04-28T21:47:33Z 00000000000000000005bd25cb9f04cfab07f6be59e5d94bb033615bc656de52
628060 2020-04-28T21:41:40Z 000000000000000000008fffa58e89a5448c55afedc837ef0439c4e1ecb67596
628059 2020-04-28T21:40:50Z 0000000000000000000d4896ccee336f700def9f9e39a697221150f44956098d
628058 2020-04-28T21:03:55Z 00000000000000000000bd0bd973bd2bb98f1042525942176c19e3c9e019c0af
628057 2020-04-28T20:40:19Z 00000000000000000000ad14d95c2d8a917d29fb0d97c1adf6e866dc7330630b
628056 2020-04-28T20:34:38Z 000000000000000000060095e7b12e35828befdfaecf58e980e3fe7759aa8cbb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCXqiy+QAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SSznAP0YsyE6oI4flWQU7tn/yEZNeDaDjorL1sB4V8JDwtNu7wEAlPf3rxnpGnq2
GJTHEOrMDyXk5+1GDIDVjUQAQm4Cswo=
=Yeac
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To verify the timestamp, you must save the signed statement with Unix line endings ('\n') and a single final line-terminator on the last line. (No blank line at the end.) Exclusively for ease of checking that the file is saved correctly, here is its SHA256 hash: b2d6ad0b970b66615a25dae0d44a810bb0b086fd767f0fd6ad6193a2fbf46e5a AE9wZW5UaW1lc3RhbXBzAABQcm9vZgC/ieLohOiSlAEIstatC5cLZmFaJdrg1EqB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My PGP key (will not be included in subsequent posts, except if/when updated)A short selection of evidence that I have been claiming the same PGP key fingerprint for a long time: -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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=Sr1A
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
reserved for thread metadata
|
|
|
|
Table of Contents
IntroductionI want better PGP signature timestamping for Nullian Verification, git commits, investigative evidence, and even e-mail. In the short to medium term, I intend to write code for this; but I have no spare development cycles right now. At this point, as I develop a specification for what I want to implement, I wish to solicit feedback from persons who have an expert-level technical understanding of both OpenTimestamps and OpenPGP. This thread will be narrowly moderated. Please keep discussion strictly on-topic, and at a high technical level. Although I would love to help newbies learn OpenTimestamps, the purpose of this thread is development discussion; thus, I have deliberately made this post opaque for anybody who does not have deep technical knowledge of the subject matter. If you have non-expert questions or comments, please PM me. At some point, I intend to open an appropriate thread in Beginners & Help; but I think that is premature, when I am seeking to write new software to cover my intended use cases. My apologies if this post is a bit of a coredump. At this point, I am essentially whiteboarding a large amount of information in haste. Literary, it is not; the technical content is here. I may soon be gone for a few days here and t here. If so, I will catch up when I return; don’t worry, I do not intend to disappear again!
Problem StatementMy objective is to solve the following problems: - 0. OTS only provides proof of past existence. When used with digital signatures, it thus provides a limited protection against the backdating of a signature, but no evidence that a signature has not been forward-dated at the time of its actual creation.
Although no single tool can prevent all deception, an integrated system with proof of both existence and recency would provide evidence preventing many possible deceptions hinged on the time at which a digital signature is made. An expert in the problem domain could interpret this evidence intelligently, in case of any dispute. - 1. The existing integration of OTS with git is too specific to that use case. A generalized solution is needed, to cover other uses cases for the timestamping of PGP signatures.
- 2. The format of the OTS git integration is clunky and ad hoc. The OpenPGP standard specifies a binary format designed for extensibility. OTS data should be integrated into the OpenPGP signature itself!
General NotesIn the following, it is important to distinguish between signed and unsigned data. In OpenPGP terms, the signed data must be included in hashed subpackets within the signature packet; and the unsigned data must be included in unhashed subpackets. References: RFC 4880, §§ 5.2.3 and 5.2.3.2. Some parts of my proposal could slightly more elegant, if I were to apply for new packet types from IANA. The registration procedure is “IETF Review”, i.e. red tape; and the OpenPGP Working Group is currently embroiled in what may be reasonably described as a flamewar over the direction of RFC4880bis. Thus instead, I plan to use § 5.2.3.16 Notation Data in the “user namespace” ( signature subpacket type 20 (0x14) per § 5.2.3.1). All OTS-related subpackets SHOULD NOT be marked critical ( bit 7 of the subpacket type (§ 5.2.3.1)), unless it is desired to prevent a signature from being verified by software that does not understand my PGP-OTS subpackets.
Proof of RecencyMy general proposal is to include a list of the most recent Bitcoin block hashes in hashed subpackets (thus, within the signed data). I am currently thinking of optimal ways to pack Notation Data subpackets with the binary hash, plus alleged block height and timestamp (which are a useful record for some use cases, if not incorrectly trusted for verification). Any verifier running a Bitcoin node could trustlessly verify that the signature’s Creation Time subpacket (§ 5.2.3.4) is soon after the referenced blocks, for a somewhat handwavy definition of “soon” which may depend on the specific use case. I hereby seek feedback on the number of block hashes which should be included. With much handwaving, I feel like about ten blockhashes will provide adequately secure evidence for most any use case; but I do not want to base technical decisions on my own feelings and handwaving! Question for Bitcoin experts: Realistically, how many block hashes need to be included to cover the case of a reorg? I have heard of a 7-block reorg, but that was a long time ago. In case of a large-scale malicious miner attack on the network, it is not inconceivable that we may get such a long reorg again. Validation logic in the OTS-PGP verifier MUST include appropriate logic for handling cases in which the most recent referenced block(s) are unknown to the verifier’s node, but older referenced blocks still exist in the blockchain. Future work may include an interface for verification that blocks provided by the signer are valid orphans. Interpreting such subtle evidence SHOULD NOT be done by n00bs; but it may be useful for interpretation by an expert witness, in case the time of a high-value signature is ever disputed in some way that this could be relevant. Another question for Bitcoin experts: Realistically, how many block hashes are needed to prevent a malicious party with significant mining hardware from somehow faking or manipulating the evidence? If you can think of any practical attacks, please post them with your estimation of how much hashpower would be required, and how many block hashes need to be listed in the signed data to provide sound evidence that your attack was not used by the signer! Question for OpenPGP experts: Is it allowed to use multiple Notation Data subpackets with the same Notation Name in a signature? The standard only says, “There may be more than one notation in a signature.” If nobody here knows the answer, then I will need to examine some popular implementations to see if they would be confused, and maybe ask on the IETF OpenPGP list. In concrete terms, for proof of recency, I tentatively plan to use multiple Notation Data hashed subpackets, —each with one blockhash and the corresponding block height and block timestamp. The subpackets must have the “human readable” flag cleared, and a Notation Name of " blockhash@opentimestamps.org" (if I can obtain permission for that—or else, a similar name at another domain). A verifier should interpret these as an array, and sort the subpackets by alleged blockheight. Alternatively, I may need to invent a sort of sub-subpacket which packs multiple sets of block hash data into a single Notation Data subpacket.
Including the OTS data in the PGP signatureI plan to pack OTS data into a single unhashed Notation Data subpacket with Notation Name similar to " pgp-timestamp@opentimestamps.org" (or a similar name at another domain). This way, the timestamp is carried with the PGP signature—where necessary, within OpenPGP’s own ASCII armour—without the type of kludge currently used by the OpenTimestamps git integration. This would Just Work for git commits, e-mail, software package distribution, PGP-signed business contracts, my Nullian Verification thread, or any other use case. Unhashed subpackets are explicitly outside the signed data, and thus can be added, removed, or modified without invalidating the signature. Although I do not yet have experience performing such surgery on a signature, it looks trivial. Signers SHOULD include a “complete” OTS timestamp, so that the signature contains all data necessary to verify the timestamp trustlessly—even if all of the calendar servers go bad or disappear. Verifiers SHOULD tolerate an incomplete timestamp, to support use cases in which a signer reasonably cannot wait for blockchain confirmations before issuing the timestamp. (However, I do not want to make this a MUST; a verifier coded for a specific use case should be allowed to demand a complete timestamp.) Verifiers SHOULD allow graceful upgrade of a PGP signature that is initially received with an incomplete timestamp, with an interface similar to the `ots upgrade` command. Verifiers MUST gracefully tolerate edge cases in which different timestamps may exist for the same signature. I don’t really have any questions about this, unless anybody can see problems that I do not see.
Interpreting the resultsThe OTS timestamp on a signature with signed proof of recency provides strong evidence that a signature was created within a time window delimited by two Bitcoin blocks X and Y. In practice, X and Y will probably not be sequential in most cases; but they should usually be within about 2–3 blocks of each other. My scheme does NOT provide strong evidence of an explicit wall-clock time. Due to the way that Bitcoin block timestamps work, it is even possible that block timestamp of X may be later than the block timestamp of Y. Question for Bitcoin experts: What is a reasonable heuristic for software interpreting an OpenPGP signature Creation Time subpacket relative to Bitcoin blocks? I think that verification should immediately fail with an error if the signature’s self-alleged time is more than 7200 seconds before X, or more than 7200 seconds after Y. Is there any better way to do this? To set a floor for the PGP timestamp for all possible edge cases, do I need to ask a Bitcoin node for the timestamps of the 11 blocks before X, and calculate the median? I am willing to specify that a signer MUST have a reasonably accurate clock. Hate unauthenticated NTP? Good! Buy an inexpensive GPS device, and hook your ntpd up to gpsd. There is no excuse for running with a wildly inaccurate clock.
Anybody wishing better to understand timestamping issues is encouraged to start with the discussion in Peter Todd’s OTS announcement blog post, “ What Can and Can’t Timestamps Prove?”
|
|
|
|
I reported this one as plagiarism. Most of the other ones seem to have some quotations around them or the source of the content. But this one is definitely plagiarism. I noticed that some (fewer than half) of the posts have source links thrown in, and some do not. So—the issue here is at best a mix of plagiarism, and improper attributions that give the wrong impression of the authorship of the text (a worse form of the same issue that I tried to explain to wolwoo earlier on this thread). It does not change the outcome. Relevant aside: Since yesterday, I have been working on a post about what plagiarism is and is not, for another one of the plagiarism case threads. I am quite familiar with this issue; and I know how to distinguish properly between plagiarism, improper authorial attribution, and also the very different but oft-confused concept of copyright infringement.
A “crypto” forum should not rely too much on trusted archives for its chain of evidence, especially when said archives are CAPTCHAing Tor users. In case of editing or deletion of posts, I have digitally signed my own attestations of quotes of wolwoo’s eight cited posts as I observed them about an hour ago, and timestamped same with Peter Todd’s OpenTimestamps (which relies on the security of the Bitcoin blockchain). The SHA-256 hashes of my PGP-clearsigned attestation files that I can produce upon request: 137ad8cc525e5b913df8b31e1f8202e963bb7004fb0dc1b89d7065321c47865a
057ca436df257f295db8f8356d2f70c79af6b34c5e429d31f09b3644cc9a4758
72c5db377090e2271c0f63bff62e86d7e139c62e935c1dd7695aa9d6da9dc980
61d85c7bbafd16baf8452c34fdcb20dc51a25eb3019365c71ec940236013316c
98c160c193902d21de787720f2d00802e85f02e207ccdda71c2bb8dee2d4c72e
09037623061c1e4bece71c4f92d1e2eb7c87dcd860b2e600be7c5f10cdd09db9
ebac8189c0f19fc542c8fe1e2b05fdbb8124a966373e9c18ad136b741eab4c9b
23c56e50f990f84094f574033e7b2f234dab1514b3d69ad2dc9927b1ea2a511a I will also provide OTS proof files upon request. (On a related note, I am working on a major update to Nullian Verification.) |
|
|
|
What a shame in the eyes of wolves! Why was wolwoo recently so concerned about meticulously avoiding plagiarism, or even improper citation of sources? Did it just slip his mind that he has a history of blatantly ripping off non-forum articles for his posts? [—long explanation—]I don't want to be accused of plagiarism I doubt that you will be, given that you identified the author by name, you linked to his post, and (insofar as I can see in your Turkish post) you did not imply that you produced this work yourself. I make the foregoing suggested improvements because it seems you really want to do this right. Plagiarism is a matter of stealing credit for another’s work. If an ordinary reasonable person reading your post would not assume that you wrote it yourself, and would not think that you claimed to write it yourself, then I do not think that you plagiarized the other post. thank you for your interest and detailed explanations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- today a Turkish user said he was banned for spam-plagiarism where can we find out exactly why? he wants to appeal. [...] today a Turkish user said he was banned for spam-plagiarism
where can we find out exactly why? he wants to appeal.
From what I can understand, coinforumgentr was translating articles with Google Translate into turkish. And apparently Gospodin tried to warn him, but too late. Thank you for your answer Sir it is necessary to be more careful about this Cue excuse: “I just don't remember when I did this shit!” |
|
|
|
~ ~ Stop annoying me. I told you, I am busy.
I like this post but rather than risk bonesjonesreturns getting overtly pulled in to the screen thus risking an electric shock as a result of giving in to the ever so alluring and charming Ms Brightman, I have decided to not repost those images  I, for one, will take that risk. ;-) Since you liked that image, and Bitcoin is always on topic here, that got me thinking about how to get her wrapped up in the blockchain. Let us start at the beginning: I say the foregoing in my capacity as the official Phantom: If I could make her sing for me, then surely I can make of her a Bitcoin maximalist! On the other hand, I don’t actually know much about Sarah Brightman except that she sings, and she has an interest in space. Perhaps she does Bitcoin already? I am oftentimes pleasantly surprised at where Bitcoin shows up. Too bad I can’t approach this from the musical angle—beyond noting what will surprise nobody: I am a high-culture élitist; and naturally, I do enjoy the (actual) opera. When I read up on it, I realized that being tagged as the “Phantom of the Opera” is exquisitely appropriate for me on so very many levels. Otherwise: Anonymity.MusicStart here: https://imslp.org/Many good-quality recordings are available for free download, legal in at least some parts of the world. You may or may not need to use an Unamerican IP address for some of the legal download links; I’m not sure. Of course, if you are a musician, the scores at IMSLP (which has merged in the Werner Icking archive) and Mutopia will be invaluable. There are other sources of legal classical music recordings; but the ones I know tend to be of poor quality, in my never-humble opinion. For illegal classical music, to have some culturally refined Russian friends with private torrents will probably do better than TPB; but the latter is worth a look, too. Other suggestions will be appreciated. I will not make any specific recommendations. Sorry, “what music do you listen to?” is too personally revealing.
Lol at these people.
Like if I said to nullius my cock would make alia squeal with pleasure whilst your old micro penis would be laughed at and ridiculed by her.
Nullius says ..in maximis meis coles lilliputian terminorum. Aka my penis is huge in lilliputian terms.
I flop out the 9inch by 7inch girth flaccid snake
Nullius says .. off topic, irrelevant, my trouser zipper has gone mouldy and I cant compare atm.
Just because you and nullius are exploring these kinds of speculative off topic meanderings does not mean that I should be involved in those kinds of discussions. Just to be clear, for the record, Mr “Bones Jones’” interest in my penis size is unrequited. I do not care to speculate on his... ...except to observe that as a rule of thumb, those who brag about theirs on the Internet usually have pathologically small ones.I do agree with this: As for the bonesjonesreturns, until his real account emerges we should all let him play the court jester here, at least it provides some form of semi-amusement.
Where is hacker1001101001? Modlog says nothing about 1021758, and he seems to have been online recently, but not posting. Is there anywhere else to check? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758Last Active: Today at 06:09:44 PM That leaves me wondering if my dear Christine will continue to be disappointed. It reminds me of that time when a (former) critic gave her a negative review— lulz. Let forum spam not disturb her equanimity!
Of course, there will be a special graphic if/when it is confirmed that spammers get banned. |
|
|
|
Ban emoji and BROKEN CAPSLOCK!? Would you ban one of my best-ever threads, which I do plan to revive someday? 😰 Click, click, click the bestial daemon:It is my one and only thread in Bounties (Altcoins). Do I not deserve to spam spam spam, too? [...] Airdrop Bounty Shill Payola Terms: In exchange for your participation in this campaign, you will receive 2 256%* airdrop bounty spam payola consisting of pretty good privacy for yourself and those with whom you communicate. (* All airdrop percentages herein stated apply the same quality of maths as seen in a typical scamcoin.)[...] Remember that the more you spam for the pro-PGP, pro-privacy message of this campaign, the more elite you will be!That is art. Please don’t tell me that you seriously want to deprive the world of such eloquent forms of expression. 😿And please, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! Have a heart for the poor, illiterate children (and by that, I mean: superannuated infants in adult bodies), who will be bereft of any means to communicate. You authoritarian word-Nazi, would you force them to study and learn the proper use of language!? 😡
What I see:  The origin of the word “spam” in the context of Internet spam.Eh... I know that the OPs want to gather some attention for their topics but it make the whole section look messy and unprofessional. As others have observed, that is a feature and not a bug. Imo the presence of such stuff is an indicator to "avoid" and "report" me topics. I quite like allowing icons and emojis in the topic title. [...] The icons allow me to see instantly which threads I should just avoid because they are likely to be nonsense, and it seems to be a pretty foolproof method.
what if someday your favorite sections would be inundated with those eye-catching titles? Why not prevent them at first? I wouldn't worry too much about that. If that kind of behavior spilled over in to boards like Technical Discussion or Technical Support, you can pretty much guarantee they would be rapidly trashed.
On the other hand, if I could ban these idiotic pictograms from the Internet altogether... |
|
|
|
Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?
Judging by the clownish comments & verbal diarrhea, I think it's an alt of D Trump...... Just don’t tell him about my Persian friend, lest he try to murder me with a drone strike. Perhaps he may even threaten to bomb the Paris Opera as an Iranian cultural site. Per his usual knowledge of both culture and geography, that’s close enough, right? For to protect myself, I had better finish coding my new anonymization technology, which is so much more elegant than that Guy Fawkes mask with its expression of perpetual constipation. My mask even comes with roses! I love roses.  Found on the Internet, attributed to “stephantom53”.Unluckily, phantom-0.0.1-alpha has an exploitable security bug: ⚠ SPOILER: Christine is an NSA TAO implant. Watch arXiv* for my forthcoming paper, “Deanonymization Attacks by Soprano Honeypots”. Meanwhile, the security bug herself is delightfully exploitable.
* arXiv, formerly known as xxx.lanl.gov (LOL), is so spelt with at least a visually sensible substitute for the Greek letter χ. Whereas the abbreviation “TPOTO” is, of course, as nonsensical as would be abbreviating philosophiae doctor as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.” The proper abbreviation would be “TPhOTO”, which even has a special glow to it.Fans of popular culture disappoint their idol. Surely, the ingenious Phantom himself knows how properly to abbreviate a Latin digraph for Greek Φ!Not that I would expect any better from the same fool whose very name mutilates the Latin digraph representing X/χ (chi) from τέχνη. Spelling “tech” as “tec” is as stupid as would be, mutatis mutandis, abbreviating “philosophiae doctor” as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”, thus breaking the digraph for Greek Φ/φ (phi). Cf. [ confer, ‘compare’] Ψ/ψ (psi), as seen in English pseudonym (< ψευδώνυμoς). * nullius condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term.
Ceterum censeo... |
|
|
|
Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ? His account was created just two months ago but he seems to be doing his best to ruffle a few feathers here [...]I agree with this: It is detrimental to immediate jump to accusatory remarks when it comes to users you disagree with and the constant barrage of "you're an alt of X" is tiring. That was stated as to one of three troll accounts that I noticed suddenly show up in the same time period. This was stated as to another: ~
His posts are relatively to the point, there aren't any randomly capitalized words, and he has gone more than 2 posts without throwing out any childish insults. He's obviously an alt, but I don't think it's CH/TOAA on this occasion. “bonesjonesreturns” is the third of those three (speaking only as to the three that I myself significantly analysed). Although this one is closer to the CH/TOAA style, it is a style that is relatively easy to mimic: Spew out stream-of-consciousness drivel based on paranoid fixations, use bad casing and grammar, and add an abundance of crude insults. With the assistance of psychotropic drugs, anybody could do it! I think that the advice in this post is useful for pragmatically handling reputational attacks big and small, without jumping to conclusions of any kind. [...] even though he failed miserably  C’mon, JollyGood! Be not so discouraging. Boned-Jones’ handiwork has not resulted in failure for others; and it does not make me miserable at all. To the contrary—I did not know that Sarah Brightman is so hot for me: Responsive. Whereupon I decided to check out what else she has been up to. Well, no wonder I have been so busy that I currently have the whole forum on ignore, except for this one thread! Methinks Mr Bones Jones’ secret plan is to get me so many new girlfriends that I will have no forum time at all. From my perspective, that is a jolly good plan.
Back to the topic: With a whole harem full of different Christines, I could keep this up all day—and all night. Read her lips: |
|
|
|
Done yet with glorifying me to the point of cult worship? I see that you are not, Mr “bonesjones”. Thanks. Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man.
Forking hell, Jay. You are not “objective”:I did not know that there was a rule against wearing a signature. The rule applies only to Lauda, Lauda’s friends, anybody who does not dislike Lauda, and people who dislike Lauda but also dislike persons approved by the forum’s resident troll-guild. Anything else is “double standards”. Also, if you are accusing someone of abusing the trust system, then you have to go beyond merely making allegations that someone has been using that trust system to mark people with positive, negative and neutral ratings It is ipso facto trust abuse for Lauda to leave positive, negative, and neutral ratings. If you disagree, then you have “double standards”. And this applies only to real or imaginary wrongdoing by Lauda and/or anybody who does not hate Lauda with extreme prejudice: Even 1 damning fact of scamming or financially motivated wrong doing is enough. To apply that to n00b s’kiddie spammer-plagiarist “hacker” is to have “double standards”. I at least say clearly hacker has done wrong. Got it? Disgraceful.
and lauda's conduct is not even the topic of this thread in that regard,..... well you know that, but you want to make it part of the topic because of your stretch of an idea that there is one gang that is against another gang or some continued amorphous concept, and such theory seems to even start with very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination as far as I can see as soon as I start to read some of your claims, they just go all over the place with lots of ongoing false equivalences and poor logic even if you might present a potentially damning fact or two that might be correct from time to time. Only yesterday, I glanced through one of “bonesjones’” prolific self-moderated smear-attack threads that I had been ignoring. This fairly exemplifies “very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination”: Nullius this alt of lauda
Any proofs to back up this statement? ~ So no proof? As I have said there is nò proof Ok, so baseless accusation.
You seem to be referring to past behaviors of Lauda, [...] if you are so fucking worried about it, create some threads about it or contact various moderators (which yeah, you likely have already done those things... good for you... )..
[...]
There are all kinds of threads about other members, so you can build your case in those threads or start a new one. He is, of course, way ahead of you here.
I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it.
Really, you don't know who was running the spam group? How exactly did you get told which threads to shitbump? A dead drop under a park bench? No, that’s the dead drop where he picks up the brown paper bags full of blockchain-traceable shitcoin payments from sources whose other payments probably could in turn be traced to payments to other spam bumpers. The dead drop for spam orders is, of course, under a table at the Green Midget Cafe. Just when I think your excuses can't get any more cringy. |
|
|
|
Boldface is “hacker’s” (!):Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ? I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it. I am sure there are many people's around the forum anonymously offering such services which is out of anyone's reach, not even mine.
So are you claiming that you have been involved in a bumping service where dozens on accounts are involved in the service itself yet you only know your name? Sharp eyes there. Within the four corners of the same post, the n00b s’kiddie “hacker” simultaneously said in substantial essence: “I don’t know, and I won’t spill what I know!”
For a thief it is unethical to disclose the names of his accomplices or his subordinates from his perspective. You know what is said about honour among thieves—or the lack thereof, which police always find useful for cracking down on ordinary crime (in contradistinction to high-level organized crime, which basically does counterintelligence cat-and-mouse games with the police; and unlike ideologically motivated dissidents driven by high ideals, who are obviously not criminals at all). “hacker’s” hypocritical gab about ethics is just blowing smoke. The balance of probabilities is that “hacker” would rat out his allegedly extant buddies in about three seconds, if he thought it paid for him to do so. That he does not, indicates that probably either (H) there are no such third parties—they are all his alts, or (T) he is still doing business with them—not making a clean break from that underworld. I mark those scenarios (H) and (T) respectively, because I am pretty much considering them to have coin-flip probabilities at this point. What is improbable and implausible is that he is Doing The Right Thing in any way. Moreover, at the very least, the self-styled “hacker” obviously knows at least some past and/or current information on who was/is paying him upstream. If he had even a scintilla of sincerity in this: I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services. ...then his ethical concern would be to coöperate with investigations of parties who use spam to advertise, and worse, typically use spam to pump-and-dump scam “investments”!
pushing double standards and fake concern for the forum whilst scamming and milking it for every satoshi they can get Can you say double standards? I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services. Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ? Says the king of double standards fake How much more double standards crap [...] do we have to listen to. Now, where are the people who are so obsessed with “double standards” and hypocrisy?
[—more dumb rote insistence that staying on topic is “running away from” off-topic discussions, all of which have been anyway repeatedly rehashed myriad times in Reputation—] I see that “bonesjones” is no longer interested in the personal life of the Phantom. What a pity. When will they learn to stop trying to mess with me?
|
|
|
|
I have stated multiple times I was involved in it before I was aware about the core working of the forum, Here we go again. Ok, hacker, you claim you are not in this business for years. Not only that "600 days ago" become "300 days ago", can you explain bumps which happened in November 2019., a month prior to creation of this topic?
I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services. Now, where are the people who are so obsessed with “double standards” and hypocrisy?
Why should marlboroza always need to do the work compiling long lists of “hacker1001101001’s” contradictions? Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. But I am not involved in any such type of further activities from this accounts as I don't control any of them. I would also like to assure everyone here that I am not involved in bumping now and not willing to facilitate it in future. I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it. So, Mr “hacker”, you refuse to talk about it due to “ethical” concerns, and also you don’t know anything about it. Is that right?
I am sure there are many people's around the forum anonymously offering such services which is out of anyone's reach, not even mine. You managed to carry on enough such business to get yourself caught with all the evidence that marlboroza discovered, and yet you somehow know absolutely about it? You don’t even know any information from your own communications and financial transactions with allegedly existing third parties who, according to you, are allegedly not all just your alts? So smart, you are. So l33t. https://web.archive.org/web/20190528000850/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758 NO SYSTEM IS SAFE !
Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ? No; but your most strident defender on this thread has attested that I am everywhere, and I see all. Well, perhaps it may be not quite so; but at least, I am capable of simple logic, as demonstrated above. |
|
|
|
Jay, that is an interesting point about self-moderated threads. I myself exclusively start self-moderated threads, in all forums where it is allowed; * I began that habit in Development & Technology, after some anti-Core/anti-Segwit trolls started to follow me obsessively—specifically targeting me. (I wonder why.)(* Except when after a twenty-month absence, I forgot about the forum bug that loses the self-mod setting on preview. Oops.)Whereas I am wary of participation in self-mod threads unless I trust the OP’s judgment. Even well-known users can be problematic. Apropos your discussion here, my experience with “bonesjones” has demonstrated to me that he does not moderate fairly, or even with basic civility. Naturally, I trust my own judgment!
From the only important contribution that the trolls have thus far made to this thread, I have been doing some research of my own... TPOTO... lol I googled TPOTO.... I got: The Phantom of the Opera. ...for I don’t follow pop music. (Yes: To me, that is pop music.) I also looked into it; and, lo... Nullius is of course TPOTO. I confess, “bonesjones” doxed me!“nullius” is Erik, better known as The Phantom. Behold my glory!Needless to say, I am pleased at the homage to my power and my genius. I will post a new self-moderated thread about this sometime maybe much later, and link to it from here; however, I have no time to finish it now. Busy. —With Christine, my Angel of Music.Meanwhile, back to the topic:Why on earth would hacker1001101001 avoiding answering the questions? Others are trying their best to defend him here and trying hard to deflect and misdirect but it all seems fairly silly to me when all he has to do is to own up to ALL his activities under ALL his alt-accounts. Ironically, if “hacker1001101001” had come clean three months ago, then my involvement in the case would have been minimal, and only at the periphery. And though I can’t speak for anyone else, you know as well as I do that quite probably, others would have been forgiving if he had just been honest. Instead, he repeatedly lied. Whenever new evidence has been discovered against him, his story has shifted; meanwhile, he has hurled insults and wild accusations at those who have caught him. Thanks to marlboroza’s tireless efforts as supported by others (including you), one lie after another has been imploded. Whereas the code-illiterate “hacker” thought that he could more or less get away with it, just as he got off with a relative slap on the wrist for the type of plagiarism for which many others have been permabanned. I lost track of the Reputation thread for almost two months; when I caught up, I was amazed to see that not only was it still going, but “hacker” is ruder and more remorseless than ever! Enough is enough. May I hereby light up a better way. Fighting scam but spreading spam? I am not convince that hacker1001101001 deserves to even have a chance to even be here in the forum. Thank you for adequately summarizing this whole thread in two sentences. |
|
|
|
~ Completely off-topic, transparent to derail and divert a thread about spammer-plagiarist “hacker1001101001” into your sick-minded obsessive smear campaign against Lauda. If it makes you feel better, go create another hundred smear threads which all sane people will ignore—against Lauda, me, marlboroza, JollyGood, nutildah, and everybody else who excites the fancy of your own internal demons. I know you will anyway. Now, back to this thread’s topic. +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================
|
|
|
|
“bonesjones”, are you seriously quoting the Bible on me? When any member calls for anothers punishment they may want to consider the passage
Matthew 7:5
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" I must observe the incongruity of your quoting that particular passage, whereas you are dishonestly attempting to fabricate motes in others’ eyes so as to deflect from the beam in the code-illiterate “hacker’s” eye. This applies to you: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Also, these were written for such smear-mongering liars as you: These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: [...]
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. But never mind, for I don’t believe in the Bible. It has no authority over me. Go to Hell with your preaching.
Lauda sitting their flirting with him in private is gross. In principle, I should neither confirm nor deny such speculation, gossip, and rumour-mongering about my private interactions with other people. It is none of your business.Whereas the types of rumours that you are attempting to incite are injurious to a woman as they are not to a man. Thus purely for Lauda’s sake, I will point out that as usual, you cite as your “evidence” a thread which says exactly the opposite of what you claim: Quote of the referenced post:It [Lauda’s ambiguous identity] is opsec by someone who is totally uninterested in the types of online relationships for which that question would be relevant. (My own relationship with Lauda is strictly one of arts and letters and Bitcoin maximalism, some mild flirtation notwithstanding.) As to myself, I get it: You are a prude who is determined to police some twisted version of my private life that exists only in your fevered imagination. These discussions provide the opportunity for a
didactic exposé of fine art: To help you out, I admit: In reality, I am like a cross between Byron and Casanova. I have spent more time studying and practicing kāmaśāstra than science and technology! Now, why don’t you quote that, PM theymos, and ask him to ban me because I like sex, and I am not ashamed of it.Have fun with that: Harassing me over my private sex life, on a forum whose administrator is a libertarian who runs a Bitcoin virtual sex community (NSFW, 18+). Please be sure to quote Matthew 5:28 at him; surely, theymos will be impressed with his moral duty to ban me with fire and brimstone. We will return to an historical discussion of
Praxiteles’ sexual relationship with Phryne
after taking a moment to appreciate this view of
an anonymous work from classical antiquity,
before Christianity made people ashamed
of the bodies with which they were born into this world:
Alia totally lost interest when she realized you were a broke down bum. She asks for 1.2btc you only had 0.01btc Say what!? According to whom? Did alia tell you this? This is wildly off-topic, and I will not permit you to derail a thread about “hacker1001101001” into yet another alia scandal thread. But I need to make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are lying about me. Also, “lost interest” is an interesting way to describe “was exposed as a scammer, temp-banned for doxing and extorting another user (not me), and then permabanned for ban evasion”. And I am quite sure that she had already lost her chances with me by the time I publicly caught her lying straight to my face. In whose delusion did she dump me? / thread. Not for you to say. /you.
Edited to add:TPOTO... lol I imagine that tune everytime you post now...
Since I am having trouble keeping track of all of the references and the various drama points, I googled TPOTO.... I got: The Phantom of the Opera. I remember listening to many of the tracks in that two CD set (wasn't it?) in the 90s, but then there were other Andrew Lloyd Weber sound tracks, too. I am still not sure how they would connect to my posts? I think he was speaking to me with that. It is hard to tell, given that his posts are rambling messes of disorganized thinking. He addressed me directly in the next line. —End of edit.—
Ceterum censeo...Repeated attempts at derailing this thread having been so disposed, I remind the administration and global mods that: - In May of 2019, “hacker1001101001” was granted lenience for plagiarism. His ban was reduced to a 60-day temp-ban and two-year sig ban, presumably on grounds of his being allegedly an otherwise good contributor to the community.
- Since then, “hacker” has substantively admitted to being in the spam business. There is evidence of him having been actively involved with paid forum spam as recently as November of 2019. This is his actual big contribution to the community.
Granting lenience to such a character makes a farce of the forum rules; and it is manifestly unfair to all the garden-variety idiots who have been banned for copy-paste plagiarism, but were not involved in organized spam operations. The solution on both counts is properly to ban the spammer-plagiarist for both plagiarism and spam. |
|
|
|
This is an excellent general point which deserves far more merit than I can afford to send it now: If I were admin I would "If I were admin"? I think that you are using that hypothetical just attempting to describe your idea of some kind of a gold standards rather than really suggesting that you would actually go through all the hard work of actually serving as an admin over years and years to build a forum, such as this one.. and maybe tweaking the various systems of the forum along the way. I have oftentimes been critical of theymos. Whereas I recognize the amount of work required actually to build and run a forum of this scale. theymos has done it; I have not; and that is why I am currently playing in his sandbox. That is not exactly his fault. The trolling pretty much reeks of “I am so superior to my boss, I could run the company so much better; if I were the boss...” LOL, OK. Have fun with that. “If I were admin” in a nice masturbational fantasy; but the reality is hard. I have always recognized this. Never before have I made free contributions of my own writing to any “user-generated content” site. If I were to prefer otherwise, I guess that would be my problem. Since my life is too valuable to waste [...] meanwhile, I think about perhaps some long-term way to make the forum trust system obsolete. “Cypherpunks write code.” In context, this is clearly a joke—of the “ha, ha, only serious!” type:Announcement: I will now found my own forum—just so that I can invite this user over, and ~ That is an excellent point. From here, the discussion inevitably devolves into big talk about some plan to redesign the Web to have at least the decentralization that Usenet had 40 years ago. To avoid that discussion, all I’ll say is that “cypherpunks write code”. :-) What if Satoshi had sat around on a financial forum saying, “If I were to make my own currency...”?
Want to refute any of that? Get specific and we'll see how you get on. No sane person grants the dignity of a serious reply to patent smear-attacks by self-evident scum who has no credibility to begin with. (Now, if ibminer were to step up and properly take credit for what is essentially his own deranged handiwork here, then I would have something to say about that. But it is off-topic on this thread. Whereas I have not forgotten the relevant thread—just been busy.) Besides what real fan of bitcoin does not have 1.2bitcoin? Where do you get off making up figures? As an advocate of financial privacy, I have never publicly disclosed exactly, or even approximately what I have. Nor will I. It is nobody’s business. All that I have said, repeatedly, is that I basically put all of my liquid wealth into Bitcoin; thus however much it is, it is a lot to me! Limit post to 300 words. LOL. The goal is to create new open source forum software that will directly compete with software like SMF and phpBB. Unlike Discourse, the software will be featureful and information-dense. Unlike Reddit, the software will support and encourage lengthy, high-quality posts (while allowing shorter posts).
pushing double standards and fake concern for the forum [...]
Free speech is getting crushed here [...]
Ban lauda, nutildah, tman, first
nullius [...] Limit post to 300 words. 1 post day max. [...]
Delete his slobbering.
Just an FYI, appeals or counter-appeals that get washed in several pages of arguments are usually not acted on by the staff. So, what you are saying is that trolls can control the outcome by spewing garbage in a thread? I should hope that the administration is not so trivially manipulable! Setting aside trolls on the one hand and petty personal snipes on the other, the only substantive counter-argument has been set forth by PrimeNumber7. I replied accordingly. All other substantive posts on this thread have been either supportive, or more or less neutral toward my proposition. Or do you really think that the outcome can be determined by a troll indulging his lurid slash-porn fantasies about me and Lauda?
Rule 34Cheer up, kitty! On the Internet, you know that you have succeeded when Rule 34 is invoked on you. Evidently, in this case, we are now the subjects of some sort of BDSM slash fanfic—with the bizarre twist that I’m supposed to punish people to get your attention. sexyscammer babe lauda
You can clearly see nullius has a new crush on lauda after his last scammer teenie babe alia blew him off. [...]
This is clear. He [nullius] only wants to punish hacker to try to get lauda into some cyber sex routine. Don't believe me? Have a look Wow. Lauda truly inspires obsession. Done fappening yet? Untouchable, unobtainable ice queen
says MEOW! in blood-red: perverting the trust system and in default trust positions ...I guess not. By “positions”, do you mean, “Lauda on top”? Or inclusions of Lauda—oh, that now feels like a double entendre! how he feels about lauda in a sexual way, and his red tags Great. The trust system itself is now officially Rule 34 material. This guy nullius is creepy. I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say that you are projecting. Now, to be helpful, I advise that you fuck off to theymos’ other sandbox at /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin (NSFW, 18+). Pathetic sad sack that you are, I don’t doubt that you can pay one of those girls to indulge your very apparent fantasies about being dominated by a powerful female. Because you are too disgusting to touch, I suggest that you see if any of them does FinDom (financial domination fetish; does not involve sex). Pay up, piggy. 
Now, back on topic: Therefore: [...] - I urge the administration to review the case of a longtime spammer who was granted leniency for plagiarism!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
