You do realise that the guy does not have a PhD and has been therefore falsely calling himself a "doctor"?

Also his master degrees are actually not very valuable at all (it is not such a secret that you can easily buy degrees at secondary universities in Australia).

It is pretty clear that this guy is basically a conman and the personality of Satoshi (from the posts he made) does not seem to match that at all.

After taking some time off to relax and recoup I have unlocked this topic to continue reporting on the progress of CIYAM (and to those who sent me PM's requesting that I continue to update this topic many thanks for the support - it is good to know that I'm not the only one following this topic).

The blockchain version of the Blog package has now been completed and has been in testing for a couple of weeks now. No major issue has been found but some minor glitches and performance bottlenecks have been recently worked on.

I don't have one - but if you wish to support with funds then I assume there is a dev crowdfund AT that you can send to (perhaps check with the devs).

In regards to being a "separate application" one possibility that is being considered would be to have a CIYAM P2P application for doing the "token" matching although if you just consider Qora and Burst there there is no need for a separate UI between them (i.e. the "exchange" would be effectively built into the wallets themselves).

I do think it is time that the "decentralised exchange" should be implemented (and I think that we should be the first to do so).

I have discussed the technical details with @vbcs to do this and it shouldn't require a lot of work (basically we need to modify the ACCT AT to be able to function as an "offer" that can be "locked" rather than already bound to an existing account and the UI needs to be modified in order to let you easily find such offers).

This decentralised exchange would operate with Burst also (so I would encourage both projects to co-operate on this) and if we work out how to work in the new CLTV op code from Bitcoin it is possible we could have offers for any pair of BTC/QORA/BURST.

Those with any skills (or spare funds) who would like to see this happen please offer your help to the devs of either Qora or Burst.

EDIT: I hold zero QORA or BURST and I am not being paid by either project for the help I have provided (which is consulting for AT).

Very much appreciated.

Locking this topic now.

How are you saying that the story has changed (nothing I've posted in this topic that tries to change that)?

If I was ever trying to "change the story" don't you think I would have deleted posts (which I never did)?

My point is that the "trade with extreme caution" doesn't apply to me as "I don't trade with anyone of this forum" (nor ever have).

Beyond the role I previously held as a forum treasurer I have never asked anyone to trust me with holding any BTC for them either (nor will I).

In any case I would request that for the sake of the open source project that my forum name be changed so at least this continual punishment is not a "group punishment".

Personally I am ready to stop participating in this forum anyway - but unfortunately this "profile" is going to keep on haunting the open source project.

I did not seek to rip off anyone - it was a stupid angry moment and the funds were quickly returned. So again "not apples and apples".

You do realise that I had held 500 BTC for around a year on behalf of the forum and then returned most of that (the remainder was the 50 BTC that was also later returned) to @theymos?. If I were really a scammer then I think I would have made off with the 500 BTC.

Also - unlike quite a few of the other forum treasurers I didn't charge any fee at all for minding those funds.

Where on earth did you come up with the figure of 250K worth of BTC (at least do the most basic of research before calling people scammers)?

To be a "scammer" is to have "scammed someone" - yet I scammed no-one.

We are not comparing "apples to apples" here.

The key point is also that *zero* funds were lost (at the time I was not actually able to release the funds from address in question but instead privately held funds were sent to satisfy @theymos).

I have worn the negative trust now for 6 months and as I don't actually "trade" with anyone on this forum (nor have ever been involved with trading on this forum other than lending some BTC to a couple of forum members back in 2012) I think it makes very little sense for people to be warned "to trade with extreme caution" with myself.

The negative reputation is affecting the image of the open source project of the same name as my current forum name so this "collective punishment" is the real issue for me. If you are not willing to change the negative trust to neutral then I would like to request a username change (say to "Ian K.") so that a google search on the name of the open source project will not locate this forum account profile.

Also ever since the event that led to this negative trust I have made sure that I am not posting whilst "under the influence" nor paying any attention to trolls (so you could say that I've "learned my lesson").

BTW - I did try sending @BadBear a PM concerning this a while back but got no reply so have created this topic instead.

You are not getting the point - it is not your machine but your internet connection that matters.

If you are mining behind the GCF you can add as many machines as you like but that won't increase your internet bandwidth.

I concur with @johnyj that Bitcoin has been designed (whether Satoshi really intended it to be or not) as a SWIFT replacement rather than a VISA replacement.

Rather than try and turn a turkey into a chicken I think we ought to simply build on what we have.

Yet another pointless block size topic?

If you aren't interested in the *real problems* (like potentially empty blocks due to miners behind the GCF giving up on including txs at all and just trying to grab the coinbase rewards) then what on earth do you think this topic will achieve?

If you're also not aware of SPV mining and the problems it brings to the Bitcoin network security then again you are simply wasting everyone's time.

Also @theymos has nothing to do with Bitcoin development itself (so the title of this topic is basically silly - don't confuse BIP101 as being "the entire debate about block size").

Although that does make perfect sense it doesn't take into account the fact that those miners behind the GCF could simply end up not being able to take advantage of adding in more txs to a block due to the network propagation issues.

A likely result is either more SPV mining (which we know is already occurring and is not good for the network as it can and has lead to forks) or even worse blocks without txs (other than the coinbase).

If the latter was to happen then any advantage of having bigger blocks may simply be countered by the single tx blocks but of course at this stage we don't really know what is even likely to occur.

As far as the constant calls to "make Bitcoin more popular" I think there are bigger issues than the confirmation times (user-friendliness of wallets being a major one).

That would of course not be good for the network (and we have seen single tx blocks before).

This is why trying to *force* bigger blocks on miners (especially those in China) could backfire very badly (the result could end up being blocks with only the coinbase tx in them rather than the many MBs of txs people are expecting to see as there is simply no consensus rule that requires a miner to include any tx other than the coinbase one which itself is already likely optional because eventually there will be no block reward).

To get around the problems of potential quantity attacks - limits were introduced for things like the number of tags per Blog Entry and the number of Blog Tags that can be created by an account.

Encryption has not been addressed at this stage but I've decided to change the focus of this project away from the packages for now and instead towards the more technical side of how a DB can work seamlessly with a blockchain.

Bribes are paid in many forms in China but I don't think that Bitcoin would be a preferred form at this stage (as you can't really actually *use* Bitcoin in China as a currency).

Things like "shopping cards" are generally more useful for amounts ranging from say 10K to 100K RMB and for much larger amounts property would be more likely to be used.

If corrupt officials were going to use Bitcoin for anything it would most likely be to transfer their wealth (or ill gotten gains if you prefer) outside of China (as the capital controls make it very hard to move large sums of RMB).

For certain I don't think LN makes sense to use for "one off purchases" unless those are in the form of "streaming audio/video" where you are paying per second (so payment channels are not the answer to all scalability issues at least in how I have understood that they will work).

That locking would be done using CLTV not using the mempool (so the locked funds *are* in the blockchain as a tx output).

Using the mempool would be rather silly as that isn't in any way guaranteed.