<snip> There is only one reasonable way to read it. It is wrong, and whoever made it should feel bad. Bigblockers suffer the same essential fallacy as UBI socialists: They don’t understand markets. Bitcoin network capacity is in extremely high demand—high enough that fees reach an equilibrium at the highest that the market will bear, and that in turn limits demand. A modest linear bump in the blocksize (= supply) would be soaked up instantly, with fees and backlog settling back to where they are now as more people try to make more transactions that are currently not even attempted. Meanwhile, that linear blocksize increase would non-linearly increase the resource demands on nodes. (And a large increase of the blocksize, à la CSW rhetoric, would just wreck the network.) Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people. It would not solve any problems, and it would create many. We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once. A blocksize increase would obviously increase miners’ BTC revenue per successful block: Blocks would be just as full, and fees would be just as high, and there would be more transactions per block. But on the other hand, it would also raise miner costs by increasing the orphan rate (and/or the cost of infrastructure to try to avoid this problem); and it would damage Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition, which is bad for miners who have long-term capital investments in Bitcoin. Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database. That is the cost of decentralization. A trusted authority serving as the central arbiter of transaction order, à la Digicash, would be orders of magnitude more efficient and would have other advantages. It obviously has some fatal disadvantages; observe that Digicash died over two decade ago. The inefficient database is evidently a worthwhile cost to bear; evidence: Bitcoin has value! Just keep in mind that it is costly. Freedom is not free.
Oh, “llama”? I read it as “lamer”, but I am not sure. Also, I do not care. The rest of it is clear, and it is stupid. Honey badger ain’t up a tree; and the bulls don’t look very dead from where I sit!
P.S., DaRude, could we please have some more peash and luff in WO? If you criticize Marcus for posting meaty pictures, then his feelings may be hurt, and he may feel discouraged from the benevolent charitable giving of these virtual meals, and then I may literally starve to death. Do you want for me to starve!? You are just full of hate.  Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash. But, if one is able to ignore the cheap attempt at drawing parallels between bigblockers and socialists (lol seriously? way to undermine your valid points there), other than that, a solid write up about big blocks for noobs to read up on. Only my question was what's the reason the CSO of blockstream is tweeting this now? Or was it a joke that i missed? As far as Marcus, if you actually read what i wrote you'd realize that i never criticized his childish way of supporting his argument against vegans by posting pictures of meat (if anything such trolling undermines his argument and just clutters the board but whateves). On that topic i just stated that it might not be healthy to have a borderline religious ceremony about the food that you're consuming, and that quoting any study that claims that's something is "entirely possible" is laughable and such BS should, and will be called out by the board. If because of that he gets butthurt enough and switches to ad hominem attacks that's his problem. Sorry to say but this board doesn't care about his hurt little feelings. State your solid arguments, honeybadger doesn't care about your crying just because someone pokes holes in your arguments. - Implication of unwarranted assumptions about me, as a sort of underhanded ad hominem attack that you evidently don’t have the balls to say outright. ✔
- Knee-jerk reaction to my use of the word “socialists”. (I referred specifically to UBI, which in practice pretty much requires making money printer go brrr; and regardless of whence the money comes, the concept is to give everyone free money. Pop quiz: Due to the workings of markets, what would giving everyone free money do to prices?) ✔
- Tortuously pompous concluding paragraph which shows incisively that my sarcasm about Marcus’ hurt feelings just went over your head. Whoosh. ✔
- All that, just to ignore the valid points I made except where you criticize me for making valid points in a way that is disagreeable to you. ✔
Filed accordingly, >/dev/null.
Poor Marcus! What will all this toxicity do to his self-esteem? Could we please have a safe space here? |
|
|
|
The Targets of Biden's War on "Domestic Extremists" May Not Be Who You Think
Illustrating the dangers of the federal government's war on "domestic extremists," animal rights activists are being prosecuted under a capacious definition of "terrorism."
Leighton Akira Woodhouse
[26 April 2021]
[...]
The following year, the animal agriculture industry successfully lobbied the Iowa state legislature to make what Pachaud had done a crime. The law was one of many so-called “Ag Gag” laws in agricultural states across the country, which make undercover investigations on factory farms by animal rights groups unlawful (an estimated 99 percent of animals raised for meat are factory farmed; the very few small family farms that are left are being systematically driven out of business by the industrialization and economic consolidation of the industry). As Ag gag laws effectively criminalize speech, some of the more sloppily written among them have been subject to successful constitutional challenges; Iowa’s 2012 law was among them. In 2019, a federal judge struck down Iowa’s 2012 law.
[...]
As should surprise nobody who lived through the political aftermath of 9/11, these laws were passed under the pretext of combatting “terrorism.” Radical animal rights and environmental activists have, in fact, long been among the FBI’s top “domestic terrorism” targets, as well as targets of draconian new legislation. In 2006, at the behest of the pharmaceutical and animal agriculture industries, Congress passed a law specifically defining animal rights activism aimed at “damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” — whether or not violence was involved — as “terrorism.”
[...]
Currently, a bill with 196 Democratic co-sponsors (and 3 Republicans) is before Congress, which would begin to build the legal and bureaucratic architecture for an interagency domestic terrorism response unit within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation is explicitly a response to the Capitol Riot and is pointed particularly at “White supremacist” and “neo-Nazi” groups — a particularly unsympathetic and uncontroversial cast of culprits.
But the PATRIOT Act was also purported to target only the most hateful, murderous people in the world — Islamic terrorists — before it metastasized into a massive surveillance state infrastructure that spied on literally every single American with an internet connection. Are we to expect that a domestic analogue to the PATRIOT Act will draw the line at violent sociopathic racists? The intelligence community demonstrably does not: a recently declassified report lists animal rights and environmental activists, abortion activists on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides, anarchists, and anti-capitalists as potential domestic terrorist threats. Whoops! Almost as if animal agriculture is inherently exploitative and wrong .Amazon and Walmart similarly put mom and pop shops out of business. Are mom and pop shops “inherently exploitative and wrong”? /logic Not to mention, there are fewer and fewer independent family farmers growing veggies nowadays. “Almost as if growing veggies is inherently exploitative and wrong.” |
|
|
|
Objectively, altcoins don’t have so much of an advantage as it may seem to the naïve newbie who just wants to buy a cup of coffee. Altcoins only seem to offer inexpensive transactions, because:
No one is buying and using shitcoins to buy a cup of coffee. Yes, they are. Just as no one is buying Bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee. Because they can’t (unless with Lightning). They're using fiat to buy a cup of coffee. See above: Shitcoins. (And those aren’t the only ones; there are some much better altcoins getting point-of-sale traction for brick and mortar purchases nowadays. If you don’t know that, it is your problem.) Which just further reinforces my point. Theory and reality are two entirely different things. Bitcoin is supposed to be money. That is the theory. If it’s not useful money in reality, then I don’t want it. Thank goodness for those L2 things that you want to ignore; why do they even exist? blockchain : wire transfer :: offchain : Visa Also, are you trying to beat out JJG for the 2021 Wordie Man award or what?  No. |
|
|
|
People who make these arguments have clearly never heard of Northern Europe I can shortcut that whole argument by pointing out that countries in Northern Europe have not recently had an executive-branch election stolen with massive ballot fraud. When you are living in a banana republic run by a socialist who stuffed the ballot, “socialism” versus “not socialism” may turn out to be the least of your problems. Before you worry about the economy being flushed down the toilet with tax-and-spend policies, you may want to worry about how El Presidente is turning Dubya’s “War on Terror” machinery of global terrorism inwards. E.g., via Glenn Greenwald: The Targets of Biden's War on "Domestic Extremists" May Not Be Who You Think
Illustrating the dangers of the federal government's war on "domestic extremists," animal rights activists are being prosecuted under a capacious definition of "terrorism."
Leighton Akira Woodhouse
[26 April 2021]
[...]
The following year, the animal agriculture industry successfully lobbied the Iowa state legislature to make what Pachaud had done a crime. The law was one of many so-called “Ag Gag” laws in agricultural states across the country, which make undercover investigations on factory farms by animal rights groups unlawful (an estimated 99 percent of animals raised for meat are factory farmed; the very few small family farms that are left are being systematically driven out of business by the industrialization and economic consolidation of the industry). As Ag gag laws effectively criminalize speech, some of the more sloppily written among them have been subject to successful constitutional challenges; Iowa’s 2012 law was among them. In 2019, a federal judge struck down Iowa’s 2012 law.
[...]
As should surprise nobody who lived through the political aftermath of 9/11, these laws were passed under the pretext of combatting “terrorism.” Radical animal rights and environmental activists have, in fact, long been among the FBI’s top “domestic terrorism” targets, as well as targets of draconian new legislation. In 2006, at the behest of the pharmaceutical and animal agriculture industries, Congress passed a law specifically defining animal rights activism aimed at “damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” — whether or not violence was involved — as “terrorism.”
[...]
Currently, a bill with 196 Democratic co-sponsors (and 3 Republicans) is before Congress, which would begin to build the legal and bureaucratic architecture for an interagency domestic terrorism response unit within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation is explicitly a response to the Capitol Riot and is pointed particularly at “White supremacist” and “neo-Nazi” groups — a particularly unsympathetic and uncontroversial cast of culprits.
But the PATRIOT Act was also purported to target only the most hateful, murderous people in the world — Islamic terrorists — before it metastasized into a massive surveillance state infrastructure that spied on literally every single American with an internet connection. Are we to expect that a domestic analogue to the PATRIOT Act will draw the line at violent sociopathic racists? The intelligence community demonstrably does not: a recently declassified report lists animal rights and environmental activists, abortion activists on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides, anarchists, and anti-capitalists as potential domestic terrorist threats. Whoops! |
|
|
|
Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people. It would not solve any problems, and it would create many. We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once.
Do we though? I keep seeing people, big blockers and some OG's alike, banging on this proverbial drum, year after year after year, as if it such a dire, imminent need. Yes. It is. But if most bitcoiners see Bitcoin as 99% SOV and and 1% or less as a transaction medium, then no, it's not. And we don't. The current TPS limit will continue to serve just fine.
Forget bigblockers. To stick one’s head n the sand with that type of thinking is to cede the field to altcoins, in the manner of philipma1957’s signature: I see BTC as the super highway and alt coins as taxis and trucks needed to move transactions. In the long term, that devolves to an altcoin replacing Bitcoin altogether: Why use one currency as a store of value, and another as a medium of exchange? It’s better to use the medium of exchange as the store of value, too. The money that can be used for both will be the most valuable money. Whence does Bitcoin derive its value, after all? And Gresham's Law will continue to prove that out.
Exactly: If Bitcoin does is not useful as money, then... I put it in such terms because candor is good and necessary for Bitcoin. “Rah rah, we’re the best!” is a losing argument at market; and telling people just to “HODL” their money, rather than using it for economic activity, is a foot-shooting way inadvertently to advocate for altcoins. Whenever I see altcoiners say that “Bitcoin is only a ‘store of value’, not good for transactions”, I call that out as untrue; and when they couch that as a Bitcoiner argument, I call it out as a strawman. But from you, it is not a strawman; it is your argument for Bitcoin! Objectively, altcoins don’t have so much of an advantage as it may seem to the naïve newbie who just wants to buy a cup of coffee. Altcoins only seem to offer inexpensive transactions, because: - Many them simply aren’t used much. Bitcoin also had negligible fees, when its blocks were empty. Low demand = low fees.
- Many of them have low security against 51% attacks (or similar attacks in POS-land). They may be adequate for toy money, but not for your life savings—and not for a trillion dollars (and growing) in total value on the network.
- The few altcoins that can actually support high TPS with some sort of adequate security make trade-offs to achieve that. The price of reasonably secure high TPS on-chain is that to run a node, you will pretty much need at least an octocore Xeon with 32 GiB of RAM, 100 Mbps dedicated bandwidth, and terabytes of fast SSDs. Accordingly, the coins must become more centralized, less private, and less censorship-resistant. Bitcoin still runs just fine on a Raspberry Pi, on the type of home Internet connection which is commonly available in most developed countries. Because of this, Bitcoin is the money that nobody can control—thus, it is still the most secure cryptocurrency, after all.
As I said before: Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database. That is the cost of decentralization.
It is a problem that cannot be magicked away with hype and handwaving. Better idea: Transact off-chain, and use the blockchain as a global, public synchronization layer for what are effectually private local ledgers. Why does every cup-of-coffee tx need to be permanently archived in the world’s most inefficient database!? There is a reason why the acronym "HODL" is so identified with Bitcoin, but certainly not with fiat.
Well, for my part, I thought that the reason for that is that Bitcoin is a good investment even through downturns—and moreover, it’s good for savings. Inflationary money is detrimental to savers. HODLing $/€ that slowly loses value is not smart! IMO, ideal money would retain exactly the same value in perpetuity. You could set it on a shelf for a thousand years, then find that one unit of it still buys exactly the same amount of (say) milk and eggs. Bitcoin is definitely not ideal by this standard; but given the choice between inflationary versus deflationary money, I prefer the deflationary money, thank you very much. (People who never save, and especially those who live a lifestyle of perpetual indebtedness, may actually prefer the inflationary money; now, there is a depressing thought.) |
|
|
|
A .sig I that once saw on—I think it was actually on Usenet, though I don’t recall: “Real Men don’t do backups. Real Men cry a lot.” Linus Torvalds: “Only wimps use tape backup. REAL men just upload their important stuff on ftp and let the rest of the world mirror it.” Slightly outdated though Real Men sign their data, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, upload it to a website alongside bitcoin.pdf, get sued by Craig Wright, and then have everyone else mirror it and torrent it. |
|
|
|
Summary: Use the free, widely available secure Bitcoin wallet seed phrase methods that have been designed and analysed by cryptographers, or else nullius may die of apoplexy. Do you want for nullius to die of apoplexy? Also, do you want to risk having your money stolen? Why mess around when the secure way is free and reasonably easy? |
|
|
|
The application of this for Bitcoin could be to code your wallet seed phrase in this way by choosing a book and finding those seed words in the book and converting them to 5 digit numbers.
Without knowing from which book and the exact print edition (your key), your seed phrase is reasonably safe.
The cryptographers here will be able to punch holes in this but for good enough protection for regular folk it could work quite well.
Yes, they will. So don’t do it.No, it is not “good enough protection for regular folk”. Not when in the real world— not in theory, but in practice—there are blackhats doing a batch offline attacks using any text corpus you can think of. In a roundabout way, you have reïnvented your own version of the brainwallet. I snipped the part that you said about number stations, because it’s irrelevant: You are introduced your scheme by discussing some spy stuff that often relied on secure randomness, then discarded secure randomness. Don’t do this. Decoding could be by the use of a one-time pad or simply a book.
One-time pad = secure randomness, by definition. (And if it doesn’t use secure randomness, it is not a one-time pad! Also, by the way, in modern cryptography, “one-time pad” is often a red flag for snakeoil; a one-time pad is itself secure, but the term is so abused by ignorant fools that it has become a mostly reliable marker for a high probability of bad crypto. A one-time pad and its information-theoretic security proof are altogether totally irrelevant to Bitcoin wallets, so I will further ignore this.) “Simply a book” may have been adequately secure for some uses 50 or 60 years ago. Not today, when a computer can easily grind through trillions of phrases guessed from a text corpus. Please do realize that cryptography has changed. In the WWII era, and for most of the Cold War era, the very best ciphers would be laughably insecure by today’s standards. Accordingly, cryptanalysis was different. In real-world use by militaries, the use of cryptography was quite often only to slow down the cryptanalysts for long enough that a message would be irrelevant: A general doesn’t care if his “ATTACK AT DAWN” message is cracked after the dawn attack has already occurred. To give you a quick gut-shot feeling for how much cryptography has changed, without getting too technical: Cryptanalysis departments used to employ teams of experts in (human) languages, to assist with estimation of word frequencies and letter frequencies in the plaintext. They don’t do that anymore—not the same way as they used to; not nearly—because modern ciphers output ciphertext that is indistinguishable from randomness for a computationally bounded attacker. If the type of probabilistic cryptanalysis used decades ago could shave even 1 bit off the security margin of a cipher like AES or Chacha20, then the cipher would be declared to be badly broken! Alan Turing could drawn up his “Eines List”, way back when—nowadays, that type of analysis is generally unhelpful. Anyway, I hope you get my point: There was a time when for certain uses, if you understood the threat model very well, then maybe you could use some phrase from a printed book as a secret key. That is completely inapplicable to Bitcoin wallets. Using a phrase from a book as a Bitcoin brainwallet is a most excellent way to run a high risk of getting your money stolen; and advising others to do so is a way to make them risk getting their money stolen. Don’t do that! P.S., if you still believe in your scheme, then please suggest it in the technical forum where you will be promptly roasted to a crisp. I don’t have so much time to pick apart insecure brainwallet schemes anymore; I wasted too much time on that, for years. |
|
|
|
I had been using a password manager for a while, But my Bitcointalk account outdated my password manager usage, so I never generated a password for it, was too lazy, learned my lesson the hard way.
Glad to hear it. Good luck keeping your accounts secure, especially now that you have a Platinum account. You wouldn’t want for anyone to steal Star Platinum!
Password managers are only for the dumb and demented geezers who can't properly memorize a few hundred of unique, secure passwords (say >10 chars, including upper/lower, numeric and special chars and no known words).
LOL. Oh, by the way, 10 chars? Considering only random case-sensitive alphanumerics, since many sites choke on special chars: $ bc
l(62^10)/l(2)
59.54196310386875208867
A Hashcat guru would need to chime in with some numbers on the cloud-cracking GPU cost to bruteforce it. Pretty high, I guess—but not high enough for my tastes, especially not with many sites using SHA-256 (or MD5). It is definitely within the realm of feasibility for hardware that humans are capable of producing, without requiring enough energy to boil the oceans. Too short.l(62^20)/l(2)
119.08392620773750417735
Wow. Not being cracked by Hashcat! I know that at least one of the popular password managers uses 20-char passwords by default. I won’t name it, because it’s a closed-source cloud thingie, and I recommend avoiding it; but that is a reasonable default, IMO. l(62^40)/l(2)
238.16785241547500835472
The security margin here is basically free, so why not? Use long passwords on sites that allow that; use max-length passwords on stupid sites that limit you to 12–16 chars, or whatever. Yes, I am inappropriately misapplying Shannon entropy. Most people commit this error when estimating password strength. If we are treating passwords as random strings, what we really want to know here is the min-entropy. Most people make this mistake from ignorance; I hereby do so from laziness, and because once we get up to a 40-char password, the security margin is so astronomically huge that none of this makes much of a difference. Also, if your password manager uses a bad algorithm to transform random bits into an alphanumeric string (or whatever), there can be a significant bias; in the wild, I have seen password manager code that will easily let you lop off 30% of the search space, if you know (or can guess) that the target used that particular password manager. Astronomically huge security margins do help here: Losing 30% of the search space for a 10-char password could make a real-world practical difference; losing 30% of the search space for a 40-char password is only a theoretical problem. * nullius 8> security margins (within reason). That's the same sort of pussy dimwits that needs to write down their seed phrase. *shaking head in disbelief*
My brainwallet is “correct horse battery staple”. I will not forget it! And it is such a nonsense phrase, nobody will ever guess it. Real men have a photographic memory and don't need crap like password managers, paper wallets or backups. Or do you really think Chuck Norris would use a password manager or backup data? * psycodad ducks, runs and goes backuping his passwordsafe database files.. A .sig I that once saw on—I think it was actually on Usenet, though I don’t recall: “Real Men don’t do backups. Real Men cry a lot.”* nullius programs his custom password manager by punching hex opcodes into the front panel, because Real Men don’t use compilers or assemblers or pussy hand-holding n00b stuff like that. |
|
|
|
Reminder: don't trust password managers...
This is bad security advice. You hereby win the award for the worst security advice that I have yet seen in 2021; that is quite an achievement, given the popularity of truly horrid security advice by total idiots. STOP GIVING BAD ADVICE. One of the most important actions that users can take to secure their online accounts is to use a password manager. Use a password manager. Use a password manager.Backdoored password manager stole dataAs many as 29,000 users of the Passwordstate password manager downloaded a malicious update that extracted data from the app and sent it to an attacker-controlled server. Bad actors compromised its upgrade mechanism and used it to install a malicious file on user computers. Will you next so fallaciously abuse particularized examples of insecure or malicious wallets, fake Electrum downloads, etc. as generalized evidence that Bitcoin is insecure? “Reminder: don’t trust Bitcoin. Bitcoin is hacked. Bitcoin was hacked through its update system.”  Note: Some people lost their life savings due to the above-referenced hack. Solution: Check PGP signatures to verify downloads!Stop the ill-informed FUD. See the PTIO list that I advised SwayStar123 to use, and use a password manager so that you can safely use long random passwords that are different for every site (= security), without accidentally losing your passwords and locking yourself out of everything (= availability): Did you find out why your account was hacked in the first place ? Did you used an easy password or you told your password to any friend etc ?
Keep a strong password and hopefully no one will be able to hack your account.
reused password ( onion) of secure password managers for you. Bitwarden may be easiest, if you are accustomed to being dependent on cloud stuff like all of the cool kids who obdurately refuse to end sentences with periods. Bonus: It is open-source; and if you want, you can run your own server instead of depending on theirs! If you have reused passwords, then you should register at have I been pwned? (not a typo). What you thus discover should properly scare you into never, ever reusing passwords again. <blink>:emoji: Never reuse passwords! :emoji: :emoji: :emoji: </blink>P.S., protip for blackhats: Phil_S probably either reuses passwords, or uses weak passwords, or both. This can be inferred, because without a password manager, it is humanly impossible to use a strong, unique password for each and every site. Please go find some incompetently run site that Phil_S also uses, steal its password database, use Hashcat to recover his password, and then use the Phil_S account to post porn in the Wall Observer. Thanks!
Also: antivirus software is useless. What a surprise. First-stage payloads uploaded to VirusTotal here and here showed that at the time this post was going live, none of the 68 tracked endpoint protection programs detected the malware. Researchers so far have been unable to obtain samples of the follow-on payload. Antivirus software has always been a scam. No wonder McAfee got rich off of it. Solution: Don’t run executable code from unknown sources. This means, among other things: Disable Javascript!
Reminder: don't trust password managers...
A txt file, in a vera(true-)crypt archive is probably more secure, especially if it only contains a cryptic description or hint of the passwords. (still wouldn't use it for btc stuff) That is such bad advice that I honestly can’t tell if you are trolling. Stop it before someone gets hurt. Do you also generate an ad hoc Bitcoin keypool with dice rolls and store the private key WIFs in a text file, so that you can avoid installing wallet software that may be backdoored? Rube Goldberg wants his security systems back. |
|
|
|
Oh boy let me digest please...!!! were you a teacher in your previous life? ....... just a random thought  No it's not nymphonomy, it's nymphotomy and neither nymphectomy... of course that will be cruel. But nymphotomy is a science in it's onw. It's called perfection. No enough sublinks i know i know...Eh, touché. So much for my attempt to infer the meaning of what I mistook to be a nonce word. I am really only in Bitcoin so that I can afford to buy the heavens, inclusive of Apsarasas. At least you didn’t throw me an ecofeminist screed on the discursive subtext revealed by how I saw feminine symbolism in a photograph of meat (!). LOL. The intersectionality of sexism and speciesism—no really, I am not joking; search the “academic” Critical Theory “literature”. Speaking of which, where is SwayStar123? The poor lass; I hope that I didn’t scare her off with my constructive challenge to her “ideas”. It would be good for her to at least eat an egg laid by a happy free-range hen, or drink a glass of whole milk from a cow on an organic dairy farm, before she permanently joins the ranks of the sickly, malnourished missionaries of the vegan faith. Perhaps it may not be too late for her yet. See what a kind-hearted do-gooder I am? I am just full of peash and luff. |
|
|
|
Why is Samson tweeting this now? Or am i reading it wrong There is only one reasonable way to read it. It is wrong, and whoever made it should feel bad. Bigblockers suffer the same essential fallacy as UBI socialists: They don’t understand markets. Bitcoin network capacity is in extremely high demand—high enough that fees reach an equilibrium at the highest that the market will bear, and that in turn limits demand. A modest linear bump in the blocksize (= supply) would be soaked up instantly, with fees and backlog settling back to where they are now as more people try to make more transactions that are currently not even attempted. Meanwhile, that linear blocksize increase would non-linearly increase the resource demands on nodes. (And a large increase of the blocksize, à la CSW rhetoric, would just wreck the network.) Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people. It would not solve any problems, and it would create many. We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once. A blocksize increase would obviously increase miners’ BTC revenue per successful block: Blocks would be just as full, and fees would be just as high, and there would be more transactions per block. But on the other hand, it would also raise miner costs by increasing the orphan rate (and/or the cost of infrastructure to try to avoid this problem); and it would damage Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition, which is bad for miners who have long-term capital investments in Bitcoin. Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database. That is the cost of decentralization. A trusted authority serving as the central arbiter of transaction order, à la Digicash, would be orders of magnitude more efficient and would have other advantages. It obviously has some fatal disadvantages; observe that Digicash died over two decade ago. The inefficient database is evidently a worthwhile cost to bear; evidence: Bitcoin has value! Just keep in mind that it is costly. Freedom is not free.
Oh, “llama”? I read it as “lamer”, but I am not sure. Also, I do not care. The rest of it is clear, and it is stupid. Honey badger ain’t up a tree; and the bulls don’t look very dead from where I sit!
P.S., DaRude, could we please have some more peash and luff in WO? If you criticize Marcus for posting meaty pictures, then his feelings may be hurt, and he may feel discouraged from the benevolent charitable giving of these virtual meals, and then I may literally starve to death. Do you want for me to starve!? You are just full of hate. |
|
|
|
But, you are wwwwwwwwrrrrrroooooonnnnnngggggg!!!!!!Bitcoin no be boring, even if uie-pooie are inclined to want to ascribe such "boring" descriptiveness to it. Learn how to get ur lil selfie ccccccciiiiiitttttteeee, otherwise you are going to require a snap-out-of-it batman slappening, whether be by dis here wee widdle avatar or some other avatar that is more inclined towards physical (imagination) communications in regards to your inept and inapt descriptors directed at king daddy. #nohomoI reiterate, Bitcoin is boring. A snoozefest! I sleep quietly at night, with my life savings in Bitcoin. So sleepy, it is. If it makes you feel any better, gold is even more boring than Bitcoin. If you want excitement, there are altcoins that recently gained 100x and then flash-crashed. Wheeee! Which ones will recover, and which ones will just slowly slide away into irrelevance? (If it makes you feel any better, you can enjoy similar excitement at a Bitcoin casino.) Now, was there supposed to be some kind of a Bitcoin crash? Zzzz. See? I am not the only one: No. After reading that, I do not feel any better. Well, too bad. I want for my money to be boring. If I wanted more excitement, then I would go to Ethland where the “move fast and break things” dev culture sometimes results in a chainsplit, a major outage of a centralized API provider, and Binance halting withdrawals. NOT BORING! With Ethereum, you are kept on the edge of your chair wondering if your money even still exists. Bitcoin lacks this feature: BORING. Ethereal curse: “May you have interesting times with your wallet.” |
|
|
|
I see a yóni symbolism in that bird. It is highlighted by the arrangement of the greens. Is that just me? How to unsee??? You can’t. I excel in my duty to make the world cuntier. Whatever it seriously need some Nymphotomy.
What do you mean? I think that I would specialize in nymphonomy, which sounds to me like the scholarly systematization of nymphs. If you want to “unsee”, perhaps you mean nymphectomy? That sounds cruel.
P.S., daily reminder that my avatar has an erotic subtext based in the refined literature of classical antiquity: Another question: Is my avatar permitted? Although it is exoterically an infinite zero, it has an esoteric meaning that is sexually graphic and explicit. It must be safe for work. —Yes, I am serious. I am well-known for double entendre and beyond: Onion-layered multiplicities of meaning. Inter alia, the green oval with a dot of my avatāra has always evoked and invoked the yóni opening to the liṅga at the moment of intromission, in accord with my private study of the kāmaśāstra.*Now, “unsee” that! |
|
|
|
I see a yóni symbolism in that bird. It is highlighted by the arrangement of the greens. Is that just me? (I actually had that thought before I scrolled down to the next post...) btw,
1) humans are ominvores
2) males have penises
3) females have vaginas
4) the sun warms the earth
science is not complicated unless you're retarded to begin with
5) some people are hermaphrodites So it is just a bit more complex than you may think. But I agree 1 to 4 are correct. As to the true % of hermaphrodites I have not been able to get a good number that I feel safe to state. ... it's true, hermaphrodites can have combinations of sexual organs, in varying degrees no less, but they are neither female or male .... but I was trying to keep it simple for people who are mentally-challenged to begin with  Marcus, your liberalism is disappointing. I will revoke your august equation, and exile you to the Soviet paradise of New Jersey to live with Philip. #sohomo Some people are born with rare pathological conditions. That is called not normal. Although normalization of the abnormal is hipster chic nowadays, most congenital defects are not yet leveraged for the liberal agenda of turning all humans into an undifferentiated mass of flesh. <—long Nullian essay; I don’t have time for WO now, unless someone starts to pay me.—>Actually, humans are looking more like meat every day. Meat owned by technocratic megalomaniacs, managed by robots, and fed a fodder made of soy with cockroaches. Well, they are meat nonetheless. Got any more of those tasty photos? Those are the best feature of WO lately. My hunger motivates me to strive for more bitcoins, so that I can afford to buy some meat. 2) males have penises
3) females have vaginas Normally, yes. Normally, a human also has two arms, two legs, one head, and five fingers on each hand. There are exceptions, which we call the defects of unfortunate circus freaks. Young children are disgusted and frightened by their freakiness, because young children are smarter than adults: They have the uncorrupted, unrepressed instincts to distinguish healthy from sick, and yes, by the way, your baby is racist. Also smart: Healthy female mammals often reject deformed newborn offspring, leaving them to die; or they sometimes kill and eat them, to recover a bit of the precious nutrition that their bodies wasted gestating a factory defect unit. Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Northern Europeans often left deformed babies in the woods to die of exposure. Modern adult “humans” are the stupidest creatures on Earth, much dumber than the cockroaches that Bill Gates will soon feed to them—or maybe feed them to, which is what they really deserve. |
|
|
|
But, you are wwwwwwwwrrrrrroooooonnnnnngggggg!!!!!!Bitcoin no be boring, even if uie-pooie are inclined to want to ascribe such "boring" descriptiveness to it. Learn how to get ur lil selfie ccccccciiiiiitttttteeee, otherwise you are going to require a snap-out-of-it batman slappening, whether be by dis here wee widdle avatar or some other avatar that is more inclined towards physical (imagination) communications in regards to your inept and inapt descriptors directed at king daddy. #nohomoI reiterate, Bitcoin is boring. A snoozefest! I sleep quietly at night, with my life savings in Bitcoin. So sleepy, it is. If it makes you feel any better, gold is even more boring than Bitcoin. If you want excitement, there are altcoins that recently gained 100x and then flash-crashed. Wheeee! Which ones will recover, and which ones will just slowly slide away into irrelevance? (If it makes you feel any better, you can enjoy similar excitement at a Bitcoin casino.) Now, was there supposed to be some kind of a Bitcoin crash? Zzzz. See? I am not the only one: Boring!“King Daddy” tells a good bedtime story: “Once upon a time, I bought Bitcoin. The value is still there. Number go up. Hodl. Happily ever after. The end.” At this point, Bitcoin is much more boring to me than keeping money in the bank. What will the bank do with my account? When will they demand more dox to let me use my money? (If you have not enjoyed the pleasure of this experience, then congratulations: It means that you have no privacy, and you are already in all of the corporate mass-surveillance databases that I avoid. The bank already knows everything about you. I don’t exist. I am an unperson.) Will depositors be required to take a haircut during a recession, as as happened in some countries? They like to keep me in suspense! |
|
|
|
What a meaty thread. I should feast later, though it’s too bad that SwayStar123 mistook my sincere attempt to engage with her constructively as an invitation to Argue On The Internet. No wonder this is such an extremely toxic community! Helpfulness is unacknowledged; and fresh perspectives are merely an opening for knee-jerk reactions, instead of an opportunity to learn something new. Sad!
As for the whole meat thing...I suspect that the media is working in overdrive as they support the NWO plan on getting us all to eat cockroaches. I just can't believe that people on this board are spouting off the propaganda as if it's all true. People who know how much they lie about Bitcoin and still believe their lies about meat. It's a damn shame. Maybe the media has been too kind to Bitcoin...it was perhaps a better filter when it was being attacked as just being used for drugs on the darkweb. It is religiosity. People who leave traditional religions (or are raised without them) usually find a modern substitute. theymos has his transhumanism, for example. Hereby lately, I have also been ignoring a quasi-religious theological war between the Marxist wealth redistributors, and the Reformed Capitalists who repose their faith in the godliness of the free market; there is not much sense on either side. Veganism is attractive to those with Puritanical tendencies, such as those with a prior history of demanding the deletion of the Wall Observer. It is based on self-denial of things that are healthy and pleasurable. It is loaded with thou shalt not. Meat is sinful. Vegans now even have a doomsday eschatology: Cow farts are literally destroying the world! Cf. my previous observations on Greta Thunberg and the Children’s Crusade. Now, take a walk through the religions of the past and present, and see how many more or less deprecate the eating of meat. Comparison and contrast is left as an exercise to the reader. He looked like a caricature of man, like an abortion: he had become a “sinner,” he was caged up, he had been imprisoned behind a host of appalling notions. He now lay there, sick, wretched, malevolent even toward himself: full of hate for the instincts of life, full of suspicion in regard to all that is still strong and happy. In short a “Christian.” “vegan.”
disgusting. you meat lovers are fucking psychos.
You do understand that without meat you wouldn't exist or if you would, you wouldn't be able to put together an intelligent line of words? Fact check: He can’t put together an intelligent line of words. Evidence is above. Anyway <edit>, since you spoke of evolution in part of the quote that I snipped in my haste here </edit>... Vegans, as most liberals and other religious fanatics, are evolution deniers who believe in human exceptionalism. The cat hunts mice, the wolf hunts deer, the lion hunts gazelle—but o talking monkey, thou shalt not. In truth, talking monkeys are only exceptional inasmuch as their brains swelled up until they became stupider than other animals.
Bitcoin down 25% last week and this place is discussing meat. Yawn. It will be back up. Hey, didn’t I say that Bitcoin is boring (and that’s a good thing). Thank me later for the increase in discord brought by my innocent little quote from the founder of the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute. Meat is totally on-topic in any Bitcoin thread! |
|
|
|
How do you deal with this crap, when someone can just make up a story, and sue you? And you have to spend money and years of your life fighting against it? You may sue him back, ask for compensation for an attempt to damage your image with his made up crap. Courts lack an adequate remedy for loss of anonymity, which would be irreparable. He is fake, there are no public prove that he owns the copyright,
I don’t even see how that question can be reached. It is reasonably indisputable that Satoshi irrevocably licenced the whitepaper for distribution by others. he had not proved himself satoshi yet, and I doubt he will ever.
I have not proved myself Napoleon yet. The nice men in white coats doubt I will ever, but that’s because they are crazy. Should I sue them to set them straight? First let him prove (which he can not) that he is satoshi then [...]
An attorney in the relevant jurisdiction would know how best to explain why that is the threshold question. |
|
|
|
Sociopaths my friend. Most of the rich "successful" types, along with the ruling class, have got there by their sociopathic abilities. This is the norm in human history of course and you could probably put a fair portion where humanity has got to so far down to these types as well.
That is a self-serving modern myth. It is necessary for rationalizing the hybristic modern myth of historical “progress” and “advancement”: How could modernity be “advanced”, if the world has become worse? The reality is that in all of recorded or recoverable history, never before has the whole world been more thoroughly corrupt, degenerate, and debased than it is now. You could put not only “a fair portion”, but the totality of this down to the downfall of the ruling classes: The sheep only go where they are led, for they can do no other, all democratic delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
These are quite dangerous and desperate people, so I'm still exploring ways I can fight this while keeping my anonymity. It's looking like it may actually be possible, but we'll have to see about that.
Cøbra, of course there are many people offering their opinions on this particular point. Some are urging you to reveal yourself; others, to the contrary. More as a message to them—to all of them, I will tell you what you already damn well know: Because you are anonymous, only you have the requisite information for making decisions about how to handle this. It is obvious that if you dox yourself, then even after you win the case, you will still suffer significant detriments from disclosure of your identity: Irreparable loss of the privacy which is of inestimable value in itself, risk of exposure to harassment or worse from random nutjobs (as Jameson Lopp suffered a few years ago), the likelihood of further pseudolegal attacks from a party who has publicly declared that, in substantial essence, he will maliciously abuse legal process to “destroy” people who don’t dance to his tune—these are only a few of the detriments that immediately come to mind. Only you know yourself and your life. Only you know how well you can handle this, in the long term. On the flipside, perhaps you may have a strategic advantage. CSW and his lawyers have no significant information about the party whom they have sued. Legalities aside, as a practical matter, there are personal characteristics and qualities which can make a difference, sometimes a decisive difference, in the course of litigation. That is not the theory of how the law is supposed to work; but that is how it does work, for better or for worse. An intelligent lawyer (which CSW lacks) usually tries to keep such factors in mind before suing—perhaps sometimes only to avoid being shocked by an unexpectedly formidable adversary. In the same vein, an unethical lawyer representing a malicious plaintiff may want to know whether or not he is picking on someone whom he can bully and manipulate in court. I know that hypothetically, if I were to out myself, many people would be surprised... Maybe you, too. Either way. At this point, only you have the knowledge that is necessary to evaluate that. In a word, only you know your own profile. Overall, it is grossly unjust for you to be placed in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position whereby to defend yourself legally from a malicious abuse of process, you may need to incur on yourself the aforesaid detriments which, thereafter, the court cannot cure. I hope that a way can be found to avoid that dilemma, which CSW is deliberately, manipulatively exploiting. On a personal note, in my own experience, the road to Hell is paved with the broken corpses of martyrs; and by standing up for my own principles and ideals with blind intransigence, I have sometimes so damaged my same principles and ideals as to constitute a betrayal motivated by loyalty. It is a trap for activist personalities. Only you can know yourself well enough to avoid such things.
P.S., on another note, I may owe you a public apology for a few of the harsh statements that I have made to you before. No matter how you may reasonably choose to handle the above issue, the way that you are standing up for the truth and for Bitcoin speaks as to your character. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
