the most staunch supporters like BurtW and Bitcoinmax staunch supporter? i think i've been pretty agnostic to be honest. i've never said pirate's op is a ponzi, but have also never claimed that it isn't. it doesnt look great that you have refused to identify yourself if you are second in command to pirate and some scam happens "some people know who i am but id prefer not be named on this forum " doesnt exactly inspire much confidence ...... everyone seems to think you are running the biggest passthrough None of it passes the smell test. These characters understand fully well what they are doing and are simply trying to hide. |
|
|
|
Ad hominem. If you want to contribute anything of substance, you need to have comprehension of the dynamics I'm talking about. The critical concepts: Capital flowStock to flow ratioVideo discussing S:FEveryone is concentrated exclusively on the stock, which not where the action is. The margins are where the flow becomes most important, and also where the profit is gained. It's very similar to hydraulics, where a marginal effort amplifies results. Woah, that's really interesting, I didn't knew about those dynamics. I'm a newbie at that sort of thing, here's a theory coming from my ass, tell me if I'm wrong: So, the value of pirate business is not about how many BTC he have, but how many BTC he can circulate between USD and BTC? If BTC was a water tank, it is not about how big is the water tank, but mainly how big are the pipes? [...]  Did I understood correctly? Or I'm completely wrong? More info for this amazing investment opportunity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfW0ke4bwI4 |
|
|
|
<Pure ignorance>
You're giving Atlas a run for being the most obnoxious troll around. Ignore. I'll say this for Atlas: at least he wasn't an eager participant in the biggest bitcoin fraud to date. |
|
|
|
Oh right, once again, no facts.
Assuming arguendo that Pirate is operating a Ponzi, the burden of proof is still on those asserting such because Pirate has not, to my knowledge, made a statement regarding his Ponzosity. You and your ilk are not fooling anyone. Your arguments aren't... compelling. Coherence usually helps.
[dog and pony show] Did you go to night school to learn to talk like that? Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).
[wet fart] Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme [as in exhibits literally each and every characteristic of a ponzi scheme], and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding. [squeaky fart] See the above link. |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.
Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proofWhen debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
[vomit, diarrhea, more farts from the mouth...] Permit me to simplify: E_p > E_npwhere E_p = N (for large positive values of N) is evidence of being flaming ponzi and E_np = 0 is evidence of not being a flaming ponzi Oh right, once again, no facts. [to be read in a pathetic, withering squeal] A simple truism: the burden of proof lies on those making incredible statements which contradict all experience. The returns promised require extraordinary explanation.FACT: No explanation is provided. End of story. One can only conclude that what looks and smells like an utter fraud is, in fact, an utter fraud. Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme [as in exhibits literally each and every characteristic of a ponzi scheme], and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding. Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed). |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.
Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proofWhen debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
[vomit, diarrhea, more farts from the mouth...] Permit me to simplify: E_p > E_npwhere E_p = N (for large positive values of N) is evidence of being flaming ponzi and E_np = 0 is evidence of not being a flaming ponzi |
|
|
|
miscreanity is spouting vague salesman-type Ponzi gibberish like its his job
lmao
nothing he says makes any sense
"churn at the margins is being capitalized upon"
[industrial quantities of horseshit] Your arguments aren't... compelling. Coherence usually helps. |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.
Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proofWhen debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
|
|
|
|
|
Total ponzi. Nothing new around here... scam central. Expect more charlatans; marks (inexperienced kids?) reliably flock to bitcoin.
A simple truism: the burden of proof lies on those making incredible statements which contradict all experience. The returns promised require extraordinary explanation.
No explanation is provided. End of story. One can only conclude that what looks and smells like an utter fraud is, in fact, an utter fraud.
Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme, and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding.
Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).
This "community" reaps what it has sown. For a long time, our very own, highly esteemed, Theymos (hero moderator, etc. ad nauseum) openly advertised a ponzi game and facilitated others. (S)he and similar elements are just the sort of scum that are guaranteeing bitcoin be forever associated with scams and frauds. Who needs a 51% attack when you can just make sure every newspaper article on bitcoin forever mentions the countless ponzi schemes and untold millions stolen from credulous fools?
It is clear that the repercussions will be substantial.
|
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/opinion/worker-owners-of-america-unite.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=printSome 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.
And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year.
Local and state governments are likewise changing the nature of American capitalism. Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.
Bitcoin or similar system will definitely be a part of the future economy. It can play a supporting role in worker-owned and operated industry.
|
|
|
|
Oh man, I nearly died laughing reading that one. You should be a comedian. Or a senator. Is your last name Kennedy by chance? Tell others how to live their lives why don't you, you seem really good at that. And tell them how much they should be be taxed for 'enlightened' and 'progressive' social welfare programs. You're playing into the hands of the system by identifying and shaming people who want to be left alone by a government that was predominantly elected by those involved in the occupy wall street mob. Highly disingenuous on your part. Your side is the power, get it?
Struck a nerve, have I? You assume far too much about me. Self-identifying American liberals nauseate me about as much as self-identifying American libertarians. They are different peanuts on the same steaming turd. By the way, I can't recall the number of "libertarians" around here who openly express disdain for democracy, so I don't see how I can be shaming them - they assert it proudly. Or maybe you didn't get the memo? "Democracy is two wolves and a hen" ... or some other such mindless trite motto. I got news for you buckaroo, most Americans- and most people in general- don't give a shit about history. Stay out of other people's business, when the going gets tough some of us haven't forgotten how to get down to business. ... ok ...  Even more hilarious is your implied threat of social darwinism to disenfranchise those people who hold politically incorrect views. Remind me to not turn my back on this one in a dark ally, your entire style reeks of the treachery of a good cause in the same tradition as Robespierre, Lenin, and FDR.
What I described is the brutal state of affairs which typically unfolds when power corners the population. It is not a threat of anything - it is what has happened over and over and over again. I wonder, do you even know what 'social darwinism' is? |
|
|
|
It's interesting this concept of democracy. It has failed in every attempt of institution. Why is America any different? People are willfully ignorant everywhere.
In the US, democracy has been vigorously undermined at nearly every opportunity. It's no wonder it has failed - it has hardly ever existed to begin with. Also, rulers tend to do their best to maintain people ignorant. The methods being used in the US are the most sophisticated in history. The hatred of democracy on this board - and by American right-wing libertarians in particluar - comes from corporate propaganda to keep people ignorant of American history. It has succeeded. I think people love to use the word "war." I really don't want this to be a war or think this is a war. It may be very important, but I don't want people on either side to die and thats usually a big part of wars.
The word is used to describe "a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups." It certainly applies in the case of economic hostilities which threaten the livelihoods of untold millions - and when people don't have shelter, health care or food, well... they either die or kill to stay alive. It's no joke. |
|
|
|
The only thing that affects standard of living is technology and access to it
Interesting. Distributed currencies may do to commerce and economies what the printing press did to the spread of information. Is that an overstatement or an understatement? The triple entry ledger seems a revolutionary accounting method. Gutenberg's invention certainly revolutionized information in a way not to be replicated until this past decade. Truly, the genie is out of the bottle. Forever. |
|
|
|
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/09/the-foot-cavalry-of-the-99-percent/Occupy Wall Street is a peaceful, nonviolent movement, but, like it or not, it’s still one half of a class war. You would be in denial if you pondered over the events of last fall and thought of them as anything other than an unsuccessful military campaign, smashed by superior numbers and resources, but walking away in tact with important tactical victories against the propaganda of the “1%,” as a little TET Offensive on American soil. As painful as it is even for someone as cynical as I am (and that’s pretty cynical) to acknowledge it, that’s the way the bought and paid for municipal governments of the “1%” and their heavily armed bands of blue uniformed mercenaries think of it.
You may have voted for them, but they do not work for you. They do not care about you. They care only about the “1%” who funded their campaigns and who promise to offer them high paying jobs after their terms expire. When they think of you, if they think of you at all, and they probably think of you only rarely, they think of you as the dehumanized enemy, as slopes, as gooks, as Hajis, as niggers at the bottom of the slave boat, or as those annoying native American tribes who are occupying the land they want to use for a government subsidized railroad.
You also scare them. They know they won a short term victory. They also remember that the French, in the short run, won the Battle of Algiers. The goal of the “foot cavalry of the 99%” this winter is to maneuver while remaining together as an army, not to scatter but to redeploy in anticipation of the weather turning warm next spring.
What is the role of a distributed currency? How can it be used to finance an ideological war - truly, the most effective type of war. All soldiers need equiment. They need comms, information, and weapons - in this case ideological weapons to counter the sea of corporate propaganda which washes over us each day. This is only part of the picture, but you had better see what is going on around us. You can be sure that central planners of the establishment are paying attention. They are very aware of what is going on and are doing their best to obscure it. Spring is coming. Now is the time to expand networks of finance, intelligence, and communication. This is the role of the IT worker.
|
|
|
|
|
Great work. I think that this is the future. Definitely watching this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin, thanks for all your hard work. I am sure you know this, but there are many people, hidden away in the background, that are impressed with your efforts. You have a sound strategic vision and have done important work in this crucial early stage. As an experienced professional, you already know that these bugs do happen in complex software. For us less-experienced people, please keep letting us know how to test the code or otherwise contribute.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
The "strength" of the hashing is irrelevant (even an 80-bit hash function - used properly - cannot be bruteforced by the current bitcoin network in any reasonable time). The only thing that matters is how long it takes to try one key for an attacker. bcrypt and whatever iterated hashing you're using achieve this in a very different way, and it is hard to compare.
It is true by the way that iterated hashing increases the chances for collisions, but only slightly. As explained in an earlier linked post, NIST recommends PBKDF2 for storing passwords, which is in fact based on salted iterated hashing.
So please stop throwing insults to eachother. Yes, bcrypt() is a very good way for storing passwords, but so it a (well implemented) iterated hashing scheme. Iterated hashing schemes are better researched and used, but bcrypt() is somewhat slower to implement in hardware. If you really want maximal resistance to hardware-assisted attacks, scrypt() may be an even better choice, yet even more recent.
Scrypt looks good, and if I were a bit less conservative with these issues, I would use it. The only thing is that it hasn't been around for as long, so maybe not quite as much peer review and bcrypt. I'm not sure if I trust the implementations out there yet. The CYA types love PBKDF2 because it meets all "industry standards," and that is ok, I suppose. After all, everything out of RSA® (The Security Division of EMC Corp.) has been bulletproof, right?  |
|
|
|
It's not my job to hand-feed you. I provided some initial references, and now it is up to you to explain why your method is superior. You have not. The reasons why eksblowfish is several orders of magnitude harder to bruteforce that other algos (like SHA, or N interations of hash-x) have little to do with iterations. It is because hashes were never designed to encrypt passwords, despite what theymos may think. They are, in part, designed to be fast. This is the opposite of what you want when protecting from password cracking ( slow). from http://www.skein-hash.info/about : The Skein Hash Function Family
Fast, Secure, Simple, Flexible, Efficient. And it rhymes with "rain."
[...]
Skein is fast. Skein-512—our primary proposal—hashes data at 6.1 clock cycles per byte on a 64-bit CPU. This means that on a 3.1 GHz x64 Core 2 Duo CPU, Skein hashes data at 500 MBytes/second per core—almost twice as fast as SHA-512 and three times faster than SHA-256. An optional hash-tree mode speeds up parallelizable implementations even more. Skein is fast for short messages, too; Skein-512 hashes short messages in about 1000 clock cycles.
The references explain why eksblowfish is so good at being slow. But go ahead... keep "daring" me to explain (the references that I posted in this thread do an ample job, for those who are interested). I will admit that your taunts amuse me, however. The post of yours that I linked is salient because it demonstrates your level of understanding of security issues. You seem to think that just by nesting questionable mechanisms N times, that you have achieved some sort of a secure cascade effect. This is demonstrably untrue in your "methods," as FalconFour described. It may help others decide wether or not to trust your scheme if they know what other schemes you have proposed on these very fora. Also, the burden of proof rests on the person who presents new methods. You. Bcrypt is the best tool to protect password databases against offline attacks. |
|
|
|
yet you trust the very keys that have claim over your coins
Wrong. I trust that I can keep my private key secure. You're conflating separate issues. and what else would you recommend to store passwords in? lastpass?
GnuPG. |
|
|
|
The funniest thing about this discussion ( besides ShadowOfHarbringer, or course, who makes me cringe with each post) is that in a forum dedicated to software which depends on hashing the shit out of SHA256 -- where people buy cheap video cards which are capable of generating literally hundreds of millions of SHA256 hashes per second on a single video card -- people still think that sha256 is a great way to slow down offline password cracking. Pathetic. And the hits will keep on coming. More stolen password databases from poorly secured websites. More stolen emails and more stolen passwords. An endless comedy of errors and bad PR. Also, nice ponzi scheme signature, theymos... inspires a lot of confidence in those who are first learning about bitcoin to see that a "Administrator/Hero Member" peddles a fucking ponzi scheme. I'm sure that won't reinforce the suspicions that people already have... What happened to your previous ponzi scheme website? Wasn't there some security problem there too? BTW. Keypass uses SHA256 to truncate or expand a user's password to 256 bits. It has nothing to do with adding computational cost to cracking. what is this number for exactly? it makes saving the DB slower so i assumed it did a similar thing.
Who knows? The authors apparently don't go out of their way to make it clear, but then again, I don't use keepass... smells a bit too much like snakeoil. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
