Well it really depends on which implementation of the blockchain you are referring to, if you're looking at the bitcoin core blockchain one of the limitations is the block size of 1Mb, meaning only 1Mb of transactions can be included in the next discovered block, thereby limiting the total of number of transactions the network can process at once.
WRONG. Bitcoin no longer has a block size limit. Segwit replaces the block size limit with a block weight limit, set to 4000000 bytes: /** The maximum allowed weight for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT = 4000000;
Perpetuating the obsolete notion of a 1MB block size limit is often part of wider disinformation against Bitcoin, and certainly feeds into it. It is true that the block weight limit does constrict the transactional capacity of the network. It is estimated that with full Segwit adoption and the types of transactions typically seen on the blockchain, blocks should average a bit more than 2MB in size. Further scaling will be achieved by (0) off-chain vertical scaling by adding another layer, with Lightning Network, (1) on-chain efficiency improvements such as Schnorr signatures, and (2) what I call “horizontal scaling” with sidechains/Drivechains. Lightning Network is already live and running, albeit still in its early stages; as it matures, its scaling effects will be huge. N.b. that by taking transactions off-chain, it makes blockchain limitations less relevant. Another limitation is the the ledger is publicly available, meaning that anybody can go and check your balance, your transaction history and who you've been dealing with, something that most people probably don't want probing into.
This is true, although blockchain analysis is not quite so easy as you say. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Use appropriate technical measures to protect your privacy. |
|
|
|
Like I said, many, many times... not everything has to be 100% math based. My aim is to make profit for people, and I am doing it. That is my end goal. Not to fit your stupid equations (which are not even relevant since you don't know the intricacies of how my script works)
I'm perfectly able to make entirely valid observations about the claims that you have made without needing to see your script. Additionally, these very sites that you're betting on attempting to prove your script are "100% math based" and run using "stupid equations". That's how the entire provable fairness system works, using cryptography and statistics, two very important fields of math on which you are very intent on dismissing as they tend to go against your claims. But hey, if you want to ignore millennia of advances in human thought and just go "it just works lol" then be my guest, but I'm not going to remove my trust because the burden of proof is on the person making the claims. As Bitcoin itself. Bitcoin is “100% math based”, “fit [to] stupid equations”, pure “mathematical mumbo jumbo”.Bitcoin as a whole is based on cryptography. Among other significant pieces thereof, the mining system is also based on probability and statistics. I explained this upthread: For the non-gamblers like me who are unaccustomed to talk of games and “busting”, I have an analogy: Alia outlines what I will here call a (fallacious) calculation over collective probabilities. A (correct) example of such a calculation is Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment. The mining process is pseudorandom, a probabilistic search—a sort of gambling. Difficulty is targeted such that on average, the time between blocks will be around 10 minutes. Yet if you watch the blockchain, you will notice that the time between blocks is quite variable. Due to the targeting at 10 minutes, you might expect “intuitively” that too-short times would be followed by too-long times. Sometimes, by happenstance, that is what occurs. But other times, not. Sometimes, a block is mined very quickly, followed by another block mined very quickly. Sometimes, the opposite. Sometimes, neither. The only (almost-)true prediction 1 which could be made from this is that over the course of many blocks, assuming constant global hashrate, the average of block generation times will be close to 10 minutes. This is analogous to predicting that over the course of many games, “ROI” will be close to -1% (the house edge). The former won’t even be exactly 10 minutes, and the latter won’t be exactly -1% (negative one percent), because the processes are probabilistic. Whereas what Alia claims this script to do is tantamount to claiming that you can semi-accurately predict the next block generation time based on the past few block generation times. Um, no. Try this concept for free: Watch the blockchain, and try to guess about how long it will take the next block to come in. Sometimes, by pure luck, you will come close with your prediction. But mostly, you will just find the experience very frustrating.
[...] 1. Actually, I stated the matter somewhat backwards: The difficulty adjustment is done every 2016 blocks retrospectively, by looking at how far away from the desired 10-minute target the past 2016 blocks’ average comes out to. But this is only necessary due to changes in global hash rate; and I here oversimplify by omitting all discussion of fluctuations in hash rate. If hash rate were constant, then you could reasonably make a forward-looking prediction that the next n block generation times would average out to about 10 minutes—for any large enough n. Also then, difficulty adjustment would never be required. If you dislike “mathematical mumbo jumbo”, then why are you in Bitcoin at all? Understanding Bitcoin requires a radically new mindset of the divine right of numbers:My view: I am far from an expert on cryptography but I will say this, cryptocurrency depends on rock-solid, secure cryptography. It is exactly where the trust is placed in an electronic money system.
It’s sad how few people understand this. Bitcoin is not merely a new mechanism of transmitting money: It is a radically (from radix = [at the] root) new and different kind of money. This misundersanding also explains why so many people parrot “vires in numeris” who neither speak Latin, nor use PGP, OTR, etc., etc. to secure their communications. Uptake of crypto in the cypherpunk sense is abysmal amongst people who talk about “cryptos” all day. And apropos the topic, I think you’re right: This lack of fundamental comprehension has serious consequences when people who do not get it set their hands to “cryptos”, whilst neither undersanding nor caring much for the crypto. Bitcoin requires a new mindset. To handle it, you must understand on a very deep level that mathematical algorithms rule as by divine right. There is no higher court of appeal, no chargeback, no kill switch—nothing to help you if you muss the maths, lose your secret keys, etc. If you get that, then you will pay careful attention to the quality of your code. Also, you will much respect Core—because they get it, too. And if you dare to make your own currency, you will not start by designing your own hash function as IOTA did! That really wrecks any credibility they ever had. I don’t have any gambling background. (Earlier today, someone had to explain to me that many gambling sites have faucets for new users. I had never heard of that...) But as a Bitcoiner, I know and respect my numbers! “Trust the numbers” (and nothing else) is Bitcoin ideology.
I wonder if aTriz is able to produce a script of any kind that he was vouching for...
I think it was shaken out rather clearly in those threads that aTriz doesn’t have any scripting ability worth speaking of. |
|
|
|
Negative trust feedback from RGBKey was my first alert that there may be something amiss with Alia.
I looked at your various assertions here nullius, and it seems that you are correct that RGBKey was one of the first ones who publicly highlighted, in the trust system, against alia - accordingly, I could not find a way, exactly to see the time that his trust rating was posted - and in that regard, it would be helpful in some cases if the trust rating pages were to show both the date and the time of the initial post (and even the date and time of the last time that edits are made to the post, if any). I spoke imprecisely, to avoid going off on a tangent. I actually saw scam_detector’s thread first, but gave it no credence: Accusations from an alt of an unknown user, who also lodged accusations against me (for which he later apologized; see here for my opinion). Of course, this was before theymos intervened... But as a matter of habit, such things cause me to check trust pages; whereupon I saw RGBKey’s negative feedback. Thus, that was my “first alert”. That was what made me slam on the brakes, and re-evaluate the whole situation. On-topic here, because it specifically pertained to the sale of this gambling script. Edit: I myself have oft wished that the trust feedback pages would display full timestamps. I think there’s a way to obtain this information, but have not looked into it.
I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo... all I care about is proving that the script works.
...and the Earth is flat. |
|
|
|
I have made my own script. I call it "Easy Script". It has gauranteed returns. It is 100% effective. To prove this, I ran it 10 times looking for a 20% ROI each time. It was successful 10/10 times. I started with 1 bit, and ended with 3 bits. I made 200% ROI. It never lost! You can see the proof here: https://www.bustabit.com/user/easyscript
What's my point here? Anyone with half a brain can tell that this is clearly nonsense, despite the proof I have posted. It was blind luck, and if I continue to play the script, I will lose money. I know this despite my 100% success rate so far, because every script will lose money. There is no such thing as a winning script. There is only short-term luck, and long-term losses. I don't know man, look at all that empirical evidence. Who cares about words and theories and all that mathematical nonsense. /s It was also cute that Alia copied her “I can profit off gambler’s fallacy” theory from her sale ad into retaliatory negative trust feedback. Negative trust feedback from RGBKey was my first alert that there may be something amiss with Alia. Coming from a competent regular in the Development & Technology Forum, a red mark warning that Alia sold mathematical impossibilities was a shock to me. The retaliatory which alleged that RGBKey “has no idea what he is talking about” redoubled the warning. Um, no; I’ve been inolved with RGBKey in technical discussions sufficiently interesting to attract gmaxwell. RGBKey knows his maths and tech stuff. You are absolutely right. However, in my experience, there are sections of games that are clearly different from one another. Quoting myself...
"Based on preceding games, the script can indicate (to a mathematical extent) what kind of games are about to come consequently. It is naturally not foolproof; but it can purely indicate."
Being a pure indication, these are generally unreliable, but can prove to be helpful. It is true that each game is individual and its odds are calculated individually, but if you think of games as sets of games, you can definitely see some mathematical odds. For example, there are 1-2 games with a 1000+x multiplier, but there has never been a game with two such games in a row. While the odds for a single game getting 1000x are (0.99/1000), the odds for two consecutive games hitting that are ((0.99/1000)^2). In the same way, let's think of a set of 10 games. The odds of all ten games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^10 = ~35%. The odds of twenty games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^20 = 12%. Thus, if 10 games bust above 1.1x, it can be reasonably assumed (as per the "gambler's fallacy") that the next ten games will probably have a bust below 1.1x. Naturally - this is a mathematical fallacy, because the odds of the ten games are calculated in an isolated fashion and are not involved with each other. However, in my practice and experience (while playing and tweaking the script), it has worked near-flawlessly, and I continue to make profit this way. Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.
Consider here the argument set forth in Alia’s negative trust feedback for RGBKey (2018-02-27): Lying in my trust rating about a thread I made, spreading false information. Nothing can predict the future, and this was made clear in my thread - apparently it did not get into this person's head. I requested spam and questions to be directed to my PMs, this person clearly did not get the memo. Stay far away.
Proof of exactly what I said: https://gyazo.com/807f3e327ad66cfe191f6c7fd3dd0654?token=c07782fe2d0e87b3e786dfd42ba316ee
Further explanation:
You are absolutely right. However, in my experience, there are sections of games that are clearly different from one another. Quoting myself...
"Based on preceding games, the script can indicate (to a mathematical extent) what kind of games are about to come consequently. It is naturally not foolproof; but it can purely indicate."
Being a pure indication, these are generally unreliable, but can prove to be helpful. It is true that each game is individual and its odds are calculated individually, but if you think of games as sets of games, you can definitely see some mathematical odds. For example, there are 1-2 games with a 1000+x multiplier, but there has never been a game with two such games in a row. While the odds for a single game getting 1000x are (0.99/1000), the odds for two consecutive games hitting that are ((0.99/1000)^2). In the same way, let's think of a set of 10 games. The odds of all ten games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^10 = ~35%. The odds of twenty games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^20 = 12%. Thus, if 10 games bust above 1.1x, it can be reasonably assumed (as per the "gambler's fallacy") that the next ten games will probably have a bust below 1.1x. Naturally - this is a mathematical fallacy, because the odds of the ten games are calculated in an isolated fashion and are not involved with each other. However, in my practice and experience (while playing and tweaking the script), it has worked near-flawlessly, and I continue to make profit this way. Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.
This user has no idea what he is talking about and remains a danger to the community if he continues to spread false trust ratings. |
|
|
|
Note: Admins have access to far more evidence than I do. My goal here is to build a case to the level of probable cause or higher, such as I believe warrants administrative investigation. I believe I have done that; and I continue to investigate. Splitting quote of DooMAD out of order, to facilitate a more organized reply: This means nothing. Troll sockpuppets oftentimes do talk to each other. Indeed, that is why they are called “sockpuppets”: The origin of that term on the Internet is an observation of how trolls make multiple alt accounts for their own puppet shows involving multiple characters. Usually, the socks support each other—but with more sophisticated trolls, sometimes their socks even argue with each other. I also emphasize: As noted in my OP, the very first Dev & Tech post by “RNC” replied as if on behalf of “dinofelis”; whereafter “dinofelis” seems to have melted away. The moment I saw that, I questioned whether “RNC” was a new “dinofelis” alt—it was my first impression of “RNC”! Although not conclusive evidence in itself, that is suggestive; and it adds to all the other paralles between the accounts in terms of expressed opinions, writing style, punctuation, etc. Having tangled with all of these aliases at some point or another, I'm definitely left with the impression that dinofelis was the more capable debater compared to Anti-Cen/RNC.
While dinofelis' arguments weren't entirely without fault, there was at least coherent reasoning demonstrated and it felt like I had a challenging opponent when seemingly valid counterpoints were raised to my arguments. I feel like I can actually respect the stance of dinofelis, even when I disagree with it.
Whereas Anti-Cen/RNC, on the other hand, generally just comes across as having a genuine cognitive dysfunction. It was like shooting fish in a barrel because they seemed so utterly dense. The experience just wasn't the same. Personally, I find it unlikely they're the same person.
If you want to see “cognitive dysfunction”, observe the following cringe-worthy posts in which “dinofelis” says, in essence, that he’s too smart to write concise, readable posts instead of long “wall of text” rambles filled with disorganized thinking. “dinofelis” claims that everybody who has trouble reading his walls of text is simply too stupid, and compares the reading difficulty of his posts to “an exposition of general relativity” (!). N.b. one example of a space before concluding punctuation; all three accounts inconsistently do this: “Have you ever read, say, an exposition of general relativity ?” I already told people: the long version is free, for the short version, you'll have to pay. I didn't have time to be short.
Your inability to concisely convey anything severely reduces the number of people reading it. I usually get halfway through the first paragraph of your posts before coming to the conclusion that my time would be better spent elsewhere. Forums are a place for discussions not monologues. Have you considered blogging? It seems more suited to your style. It is not my "inability". It is my lack of desire to waste time on being succinct. I can be, but it takes time and effort I don't want to spend on a forum. I already spend too much time on it, I cannot spend 2 or 3 times more. I don't want to be "read". I don't want to tell the world. I want to find out if my thinking is correct, if there are intelligent counter arguments to my thinking. For that, I want to give all elements that led to my argument. That takes room. It would take less room if I reworked it, but that's too much of an effort. If someone doesn't have the attention span to read me, he probably won't be able to give me a counter argument either that is valuable to me. I may of course push off the true expert that could point out an error by the walls of text I produce. But a true expert may not be put off to read a page of text. But the casual reader that is put off by long arguments, won't be useful to me, so I don't care he doesn't read. I certainly don't want to blog, because I have nothing to "tell the world", and certainly not for free. I want to learn from the world. My walls of text, spread all over the place in a disorganized fashion will also make it essentially impossible to steal anything useful from it, if ever I decided to sell something of it. On the contrary to the rest of your statement, I think many of the most knowledgeable people here have got far more important things to do with there time than trying to decipher your "text walls" to see if there is anything vaguely resembling coherent thinking hidden in there somewhere.
Have you ever read, say, an exposition of general relativity ? How many pages do you have to acquire, follow explanations, fill in gaps the author left, think through what the author is saying, not being quite sure that you're with him, before you actually start understanding the argument ? Compared to that level of difficulty, "working through my walls of text" is leisure in a blink of an eye. People not capable of doing this, can probably not reason on a sophisticated enough level to even start being useful. Usually, in texts like that, the problem is rather that the text is too concise, and that one has to fill in too many gaps. I err probably on the other side, I'm too verbose, too explicit, too much in simple details that could be filled in, in what I say. I'll ask you: how many lines of explanation would you need to understand, from scratch, say, Pollard's rho attack on a Diffie-Hellman key exchange ? Suppose that this was an unknown thing, and that someone posted this here for the first time, somewhat hesitant maybe in the fluidity of his wordings. Would you also complain that there are "walls of text" if someone would try to give an argument explaining how it could be done in a page or two ? Do you think that your comments would be of any use ? If you tell me that the few people capable of seeing that, are elsewhere, then one must conclude that the amount of brain power here is too low to be of any sensible use in the development of any form of advanced argument. That's also a possibility of course. Now, really: If I were to remove the name, could you distinguish the following from any of the longer “Anti-Cen” posts? I pick this example only because it was just upthread from the above two, and in the same context. It’s far from his worst. The only argument was that someone said that I didn't understand the principles. "you're wrong because he said you're wrong".
You really should go back and read the answers you've been given in this thread again. You seem to have missed all the times you have been corrected. I haven't been. There has not been a single technical argument here, where mine is taken step by step and shown how things work differently than what I say. In fact, the onus of proof is on the claim that, contrary to what Satoshi said, contrary to what Gavin said, contrary to what I'm saying, non-mining nodes "do keep miners in check". In as far as an argument has been presented, it goes even against itself: the so-called UASF threat. What needs to be demonstrated, in order to deny my claim "non-mining nodes don't influence the functioning of the system" ? One needs to consider two different cases, one where non-mining nodes WANT something, and act, and one, all else equal, they DON'T act, and show that it makes a difference. First example: "non mining nodes keep miners in check". Note that we are NOT arguing how "exchanges keep miners in check" or how "other miners keep miners in check". So we agree that all miners, and all exchanges, act together, and that it is the sole presence of a lot of non-mining nodes, that keeps them in check. If this can be argued, you won. Non-mining nodes keep miners in check in that case. A: there are not many non-mining nodes. All miners, and all exchanges, have decided upon a protocol change. They do so. The protocol change happens. B: a lot of non-mining full nodes don't want this protocol change. Tell me how they prevent it ? Suppose that out of the 10 000 non-mining nodes, 9000 of them are opposed to this protocol change. What happens ? Miners apply the protocol change. 9000 nodes do not agree, and don't accept the N+1 block. They wait for ever. The "good" N+1 block never arrives. They don't transmit the "bad" N+x blocks. Users, initially connecting to these nodes, don't see their transactions. They look for other nodes, until they stumble on one of the 1000 agreeing nodes, on an exchange node, or on a miner node. They see that the chain is way further now, and they can see that the other nodes fell behind and stopped at N. They disconnect from them, and connect to the updating minority of nodes (from miners, exchanges, and a few enthusiasts). ==> the large majority of non mining nodes, not agreeing with the protocol change, didn't keep the miners in check, did they ? B-bis: suppose that 9990 nodes are opposed, but suppose that miners and exchanges, agreeing on the protocol change, "sybil" and install 200000 new nodes. Now, the "node count" in favour of the protocol change is huge. What is that small minority complaining ? They are disconnected from the network, because they fall behind. ==> the large initial majority of non mining nodes can be sybiled away. They didn't, after all, keep the miners in check, did they ? Conclusion case 1: whatever the non-mining nodes do, if miners and exchanges have agreed upon a protocol change, that protocol change happens, all else equal. Second example: nodes want a protocol change, miners and exchanges want to keep the old protocolThis is the UASF. A) only a small minority of non-mining nodes wants the protocol change. No miner makes their blocks, so they stop. B) 9000 out of 10 000 non mining nodes want the protocol change. They stop their old client (so they remove themselves from the network) and they install the new client, that doesn't find new blocks according to their desires. They fall behind while the miners continue to make the old chain. ==> same scenario as 1 B. But suppose that somehow, I'm wrong here. Suppose that a large majority of non-mining nodes COULD impose a protocol change. C) now, imagine that none of the honest non-mining nodes wants a protocol change, but evil Joe does. He makes a UASF node, and launches 200000 of them. He has now clear UASF majority on the node network. In as much as UASF could work (it doesn't, see 2.B, but suppose), then just any evil Joe can impose a protocol change with a sybil attack with UASF nodes. QED. |
|
|
|
I hereby request that admins investigate and permaban this person: The foregoing list may be edited by me if/as new evidence and potential new connections are discovered. I have previously reported #1423316 “Anti-Cen” to admins for the following threat PM which “Anti-Cen” sent to me. Alhough I have reason to believe that the user was banned shortly thereafter, I do not know the formal reasons for the ban. Subject: YOU BIT OF SHITYou will be trolled by me across the internet and I will show you for the lying bit of scum you are
Archived image: On 2018-02-26, “RNC” resurrected a thread from December 2017 with immediate attacks on achow101 and me, in that order. I immediately recognized an “Anti-Cen”/“dinofelis” attempt to bait me into a flamewar (which I avoid in Dev & Tech); I thus promptly made it clear that I wasn’t biting. +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================
Other users attempted to reason with “RNC”, until an argument escalated to the point wherein “RNC” defiantly admitted to being banned user “Anti-Cen” ( archive as linked above; all formatting as in the original):
@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.
You are right, 100% right and indeed I am anti-cen which is short for anti censorship but here i met a nazi in the form of a moderator who dare not allow open debate which I have reported and advise him to return back to 1930's Germany so that he can burn a few more books. Yes please laugh by exposing a banned account but really the joke is on you if you need the service of a bias PR officer to protect you from a few home truths around here. The "newbies" here would be the ones your trying to convert into harden gambling addicts with the loaded propaganda that is being pumped out here and this is why you fear me and ban number two is coming up so credit for spotting the obvious but i did not try to hide it anyway but your not that smart because no one writes like me and you now need to apologize to dinofelis because your witch hunt lead you to an innocent man. Would you like me to PM you a list of the bottom sniffers I have compiled here, paid thugs they send in since we are exchanging names not that your on the list and I don't even hold it against you for exposing my real name that I would like back anyway.
Holly shit batman, RNC is Anti-Cen in disguise so I wonder why he's is having to do that BatmanSnapshot of the whole thread wherein “RNC” admitted to ban evasion: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302174206/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2617240.0;allSnapshot of profile for #1801074 “RNC”: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175807/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074I know of no means to obtain an atomic snapshot of all a user’s posts; this is the closest I can get for #1801074 “RNC”: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302174609/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPostshttps://web.archive.org/web/20180302175055/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=20https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175108/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=40https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175130/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=60https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175146/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=80https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175150/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=100I believe the case is clear for an immediate permaban of the individual behind the “Anti-Cen” and “RNC” accounts, on the basis of ban evasion.
In re #376659 “dinofelis”“RNC’s” 12th post, made less than 8 hours after creating the account, was a reply to a subtopic titled “Re: DINOFELIS is the actual troll”—in reply to a user who had been addressing “dinofelis”. Observe that “RNC’s” use of language, punctuation, and even odd line breaks are a perfect match for “dinofelis”: That isn't what he said, and you know it.
dinofelis, your only discernible input on this forum is misrepresenting facts in a (kind of) subtle way. Well, you're also good at avoiding direct debunking of the things you say which aren't true.
You ought really to be banned, as it's too obvious that you're not interested in any kind of constructive debate, and never have been (unfortunately, dinofelis is likely the owner of many accounts that have been created with a suspiciously similar style of debate, only adding to the perception that the owner is very intent on wasting everyone's time on Bitcointalk.org)
Are you the one they send in to abuse people and if they answer back they get banned because many of you're posts seem to be picking a fight with people not quite seeing things your way. That isn't going to be happening, the best strategy with your posts is to skim-read them until one finds the deliberate errors you try to promote as facts I wonder why you have not been banned or are you in with the owners ? Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175658/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2786690.msg29667749#msg29667749This occurred in a flame thread, soon thereafter locked by the moderator. I noticed the “RNC”/“dinofelis” connection immediately, on 2018-02-05; but I did not say anything to anybody about it, until after I saw the same connection independently observed by another well-respected regular in Dev & Tech. In addressing DooMAD’s attempt to reason with “RNC”, pebwindkraft said (boldface added): @DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.
I had noticed the “dinofelis”/“Anti-Cen” similarity before the “RNC” account was even created, although I kept such suspicions to myself. Both accounts post long screeds attacking Bitcoin, Core developers, Segwit, the Lightning Network, etc., etc. Both accounts make the same claim of superior knowledge; both accounts not only commit serious technical errors in their claims, but make the same technical errors. Both accounts have similar style of writing, argumentation, punctuation, and formatting. Although I kept earlier suspicions of alt accounts to myself, I had it on my mind when I previously mentioned the banned “Anti-Cen” in the same breath as “dinofelis” in a Meta discussion of Dev & Tech trolls: A few recent examples of “misinformation” trolls: - In the thread I started on Bitcoin’s Public-Key Security Level (OP currently +18), Anti-Cen #1423316 posted so much gibberish about using Microsoft Windows RSACryptoServiceProvider(512) for Bitcoin keys (!) that I myself had difficulty wading through it to pick out the real replies so I could respond to them. That has a real impact on readers. Anti-Cen’s post history includes claims of his own extraordinary expertise to support grossly wrong technical statements about Bitcoin, extreme hostility toward Core, a persistent suggestion that fees be capped at 1.5 (without specifying a unit), etc., etc.... At some point, I gathered a representative selection of quotes from Anti-Cen’s posts. As I have not hereto revealed publicly, Anti-Cen has also tried to bait me by PM. I think that Anti-Cen is probably the most odious troll in Dev & Tech right now.
- In a thread ChiBitCTy started on Important Lighting Network reading- for everyone! (OP currently +9, including +1 from me), dinofelis #376659 derailed the thread into discussion of his attack on nodes: “Nodes are ‘vote by IP number’, which is what Satoshi wanted to nullify by vote by PoW”, “The only reason why they talk Joes into running nodes in their basement, is because bitcoin needs a story, and decentralization sounds like a good selling argument”, “nobody will give a shit that 10 000 Joes find their nodes switching off because they don't find the ‘right’ block chain any more”, etc., etc., plus a sprinkle of crazy: “People very knowledgeable of that system cannot ignore the basic design principles of that system, can they ? So there must be a deceptive reason for telling this [that the system is decentralized —Ed.], given that it is objectively wrong.” I tried to cut the discussion off—I mean it—so as to set the thread back on track. Any thread which catches dinofelis’ attention is liable to go in a similar direction. I see that Wind_FURY seems to be trying to draw fire, I presume to unclog other threads. I’d expect that all the technically competent regulars must be sick of dinofelis.
[...] I argue that the foregoing establishes a prima facie case for linking “dinofelis” as the primary alt of confirmed ban-evader “Anti-Cen”/“dinofelis”. Whereupon, I request that admins investigate and take appropriate action. I will also be investigating further, and dropping quotes/archive links into this thread. I encourage other users to do their own investigations, and post their evidence. Here’s to a troll-free Development & Technology Discussion forum. |
|
|
|
Ban evasion is a permanban offense. I am now gathering evidence for a new thread I will start have started in Meta. For the sake of sanity, I ask everybody to stop replying to “RNC”. I also ask the moderator to not delete anything until I get all the evidence. Thank you.@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.
Nailed it, pebwindkraft. Big merit will be coming your way. I noticed the same thing, long ago. I don’t always immediately speak out on what I see; I await the right moment; and it seems you hit exactly the right moment! Thank you.
@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.
You are right, 100% right and indeed I am anti-cen which is short for anti censorship but here i met a nazi in the form of a moderator who dare not allow open debate which I have reported and advise him to return back to 1930's Germany so that he can burn a few more books. Yes please laugh by exposing a banned account but really the joke is on you if you need the service of a bias PR officer to protect you from a few home truths around here. The "newbies" here would be the ones your trying to convert into harden gambling addicts with the loaded propaganda that is being pumped out here and this is why you fear me and ban number two is coming up so credit for spotting the obvious but i did not try to hide it anyway but your not that smart because no one writes like me and you now need to apologize to dinofelis because your witch hunt lead you to an innocent man. Would you like me to PM you a list of the bottom sniffers I have compiled here, paid thugs they send in since we are exchanging names not that your on the list and I don't even hold it against you for exposing my real name that I would like back anyway.
Holly shit batman, RNC is Anti-Cen in disguise so I wonder why he's is having to do that Batman
|
|
|
|
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302133803/https://github.com/acceptbitcoincash/acceptbitcoincash/issues/540N.b. that the issue comment is by Github user “accept-bitcoin-cash”, “the Accept Bitcoin Cash initiative”, https:// acceptbitcoin.cash/ (URL broken so as to not linkify for a Btrash promotion site). It does not appear to be from “Alia” herself/himself/whatever. It can be reasonably inferred that the information was taken as of 2018-02-06 from: https://www.reddit.com/r/GirlsGoneBitcoin/comments/7t4w7a/can_someone_please_play_with_me/(by a deleted user, now blanked) ...and that it probably reflects information displayed by /u/alia_armelle at that URL, as of that date, by an apparently disinterested party. (“accept-bitcoin-cash” may lie about Btrash, but would have no motive to make stuff up about some arbitrary Reddit camgirl.)
@RGBKey, I seek your expertise for a gambling newbie question: Is it mathematically possible to write a gambling script which loses 90% of the time on a site with a 1% house edge?
If not, Alia is scamming! (Also, if so, Alia was scamming!)
Of course. Betting on a 9.9x multiplier has a 10% chance to win, which would lose 90% of the time on average. Thanks. I didn’t know that these sites let you choose such a multiplier. #endif /* defined(GAMBLING_NEWBIE) */
I have further substantive replies upthread, but no time for that now. At that, I will not be spending so much time on this matter going forward—certainly not engaging daily in regular snipes with the “alia” account. But as I said above, I do recommend that the thread remain open for any further substantial evidence. Even under the most favourable (so to speak) assumptions about Alia, this matter intersects with serial scamming in other places; in any case, it is a matter I intend to at least keep an eye on. Keeping it all in one topic would be tidy. |
|
|
|
I've maintained throughout that the script has a 90% chance of winning and 10% chance of failure... I don't want to risk 1 BTC on a 10% chance of failure, simple as that. The ROI is currently being proved daily anyway
Back atcha: If the script wins 90% of the time and has positive ROI over time, then you shouldn’t worry about risking 1 BTC. ROI, yes? You’ll make it back, then make more. Just like your investors. |
|
|
|
Anecdotal/empirical evidence Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script. I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success. My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence. Now, I’m confused (per my above post). Usually, when somebody in such a context calls out “anecdotal” evidence, it’s a criticism. Thus, my assumption that she was referring to something which I put forth. Her statement was ambiguous in the context. Whereas if she was referring to her purported attempt to empirically disprove the laws of mathematics—well, RGBKey already calculated that she would have a 29.4% probability of meeting all her stated “proof” criteria by blind luck. — And as I noted, she was only risking a total of 0.00004 BTC, plus her promise to abandon a useless user account here.29.4% probability of success, little to no downside risk—what an empirical “proof”!The downside isn't my money. It's my rep. If the script doesn't work I'll admit I'm a scammer and fuck off forever. What “rep”? Your “rep” here is deeply in the negative. You have less than nothing to lose in terms of reputation! |
|
|
|
Anecdotal/empirical evidence Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script. I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success. My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence. Now, I’m confused (per my above post). Usually, when somebody in such a context calls out “anecdotal” evidence, it’s a criticism. Thus, my assumption that she was referring to something which I put forth. Her statement was ambiguous in the context. Whereas if she was referring to her purported attempt to empirically disprove the laws of mathematics—well, RGBKey already calculated that she would have a 29.4% probability of meeting all her stated “proof” criteria by blind luck. — And as I noted, she was only risking a total of 0.00004 BTC, plus her promise to abandon a useless user account here.29.4% probability of success, little to no downside risk—what an empirical “proof”! |
|
|
|
All within the same thread:the script usually works 9/10 times or more
the script fails 9/10 times
Pfft, numbers? Who cares? I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...
Latest snapshot:https://web.archive.org/web/20180302031007/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;all(Thanks to suchmoon for having caught that. Oops.)
@RGBKey, I seek your expertise for a gambling newbie question: Is it mathematically possible to write a gambling script which loses 90% of the time on a site with a 1% house edge? If not, Alia is scamming! (Also, if so, Alia was scamming!) Anecdotal/empirical evidence “Anecdotal/empirical evidence”, says the individual who claims that the “evidence” of 20 gambling runs of your script would override the laws of mathematics. (As RGBKey calculated, you would have a 29.4% chance of “proof” by blind luck.) Or do your words “anecdotal/empirical evidence” refer to something else? It’s a bit ambiguous; and you have a recent history of word-conflation and patent self-contradiction to the point of nonsense: Typo I meant wins 9/10 times
That makes no sense in the context: 2) Since the script wins 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
This makes sense in the context: 2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
So maybe add to this: I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...
...also this: I'm really not interested in the reading comprehension mumbo jumbo...
A one-way call might be one in which you and your brother would be on camera, and the forum member calling you would not be on camera, right?
The only verification of identity (or attempt to accomplish such) would be for you to answer various questions (and show various things, perhaps?) in a live kind of format.
At this point, do you really believe that any attempt at video verification process would even be useful to clarify anything in your favor, because there seems to be so much damning information out there about you that pretty much establishes that you could not be who you claim to be (innocent 19 year old college girl with a 15 year old brother living under the same roof). You just seem to come off as way too sophisticated and worldly experienced to be able to also fit the innocent girl status.
If I'm sophisticated and have lots of worldly experience, that makes me 15 y/o boy and not a 19 y/o girl. Best. Logic. Yes, that is EXACTLY the kind of Skype call I want. Alia, I hate to tell you this, but I’m probably the only user on this forum who still gives so much as three damns about whether you are favours, or favours’ big sister. I do still want to resolve that. Not sure how. Won’t expend too much effort on my own part; to use a concept you understand ( from econ class—and otherwise), what incentive do I have? But if you’re really a 19-year-old girl rather than an all-around lying sack of shit with external plumbing, I don’t want to leave you in some Kafkaesque situation where you can’t prove you’re not your scamming little bro’. Call it the principle of the matter. Not going to help you with the mathematically impossible gambling script or your flip-flops there. Obviously. |
|
|
|
Typo I meant wins 9/10 times
That makes no sense in the context: 2) Since the script wins 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
This makes sense in the context: 2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
So maybe add to this: I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...
...also this: I'm really not interested in the reading comprehension mumbo jumbo...
[...important pertinent quotations which everybody should review...] Love that last one. Fuck math, I make profit.
Typo I meant wins 9/10 times
 Damn it, suchmoon. +1 IOU. Which will vanish and become something different if I gamble my sMerit using Alia’s script, the dog eats my homework, or I find any other handy excuse—“typo”. |
|
|
|
All within the same thread:the script usually works 9/10 times or more
the script fails 9/10 times
Pfft, numbers? Who cares? I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...
Latest snapshot:https://web.archive.org/web/20180302031007/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;all(Thanks to suchmoon for having caught that. Oops.)
@RGBKey, I seek your expertise for a gambling newbie question: Is it mathematically possible to write a gambling script which loses 90% of the time on a site with a 1% house edge? If not, Alia is scamming! (Also, if so, Alia was scamming!)
|
|
|
|
the script usually works 9/10 times or more
the script fails 9/10 times
Pfft, numbers? Who cares? I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...
suchmoon, I get your point. You see that I do. But I still interested in relating that to whatever claims Alia made when she was offering the script for sale. Those should take precedence, given the purpose of this “proof” thread: To prove that selling the script was not a scam, viz., that it will perform as then advertised. |
|
|
|
Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.
1) ROI is ROI. Whether it's on 1 bit or 1 bitcoin the return percentage is the same.
2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
The script fails 9 out of 10 times? Not quite what you claimed in the OP, is it now? Is it what she claimed in the thread where she was selling the script? This thread is supposed to somehow prove that that thread was legit. Therefore, to be fair, the standard here should be at a minimum what was claimed there. Edit: A “gambling script” which “fails 9/10 times” is a hell of a gambling script. Take a chance! 1/10 of the time, this script will win something! And yes, I would readily find plausible a claim that this script wins money at least 1/10 of the time on a site with a 1% house edge. |
|
|
|
Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.
1) ROI is ROI. Whether it's on 1 bit or 1 bitcoin the return percentage is the same.
2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
I have. Risk is also told to investors. There is a chance of losses. That is why I don't use it on personal funds too much. Luckily, no investor has lost money so far (and no more will because I am no longer using the script commercially) investors = stupid. Did you disclose to them that they’re stupid? You “offered” to me that I could invest a minimum of 1.2 BTC. You did not disclose to me that I would be stupid to invest 1.2+ BTC. I was referring to my test run. They are not stupid for playing with 1.2 BTC. They are stupid for suggesting that whether I play with 1 bit or 1 bitcoin makes a difference to the ROI. Do you get it? Ok, please explain this to me like I’m stupid. What’s different about the test run? Does the test run script fail 9/10 times, whereas the real script you saved for investors only fails 8.99/10 times? Do you have two scripts, the “test run” script which is stupid to use for large amounts and should only be judged on ROI, and the real script which is fine to use for 1.2+ BTC? The logic here is getting so convoluted that I have trouble arguing against it. It’s “not even wrong”. Edit: I see what you’re claiming here: That people asking you why you don’t just make yourself rich with the script are somehow stupid for asking the obvious question. Better question, which you have not addressed: Did you ever disclose to investors that “the script fails 9/10 times”? You did not disclose that to me, when you “offered” that I could invest a minimum of 1.2 BTC. Obvious note: A 90% failure rate is very different from, “Risk is also told to investors. There is a chance of losses.”. |
|
|
|
>claimed guaranteed profit
Never
Whether or not that be so, did you ever disclose this? (Boldface added.) Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.
1) ROI is ROI. Whether it's on 1 bit or 1 bitcoin the return percentage is the same.
2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
I have. Risk is also told to investors. There is a chance of losses. That is why I don't use it on personal funds too much. Luckily, no investor has lost money so far (and no more will because I am no longer using the script commercially) , investors = stupid. Did you disclose to them that they’re stupid? You “offered” to me that I could invest a minimum of 1.2 BTC. You did not disclose to me that I would be stupid to invest 1.2+ BTC. |
|
|
|
>claimed guaranteed profit
Never
Whether or not that be so, did you ever disclose this? (Boldface added.) Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.
1) ROI is ROI. Whether it's on 1 bit or 1 bitcoin the return percentage is the same.
2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
|
|
|
|
I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo... all I care about is proving that the script works.
[...]
Yeah, maybe the maths says I am crazy, but this has worked for me before and I vehemently believe it will continue to work for me
Well, I’m glad you never showed that attitude when you stepped into Dev & Tech a few times. Psshaw, maths? Who needs ’em? Bitcoin don’t need no maths— oh, wait.What kind of alleged Bitcoin lover drips contempt for “mathematical mumbo jumbo”? “Vires in numeris.”
Fyi, in case nobody knows maths - whether I play with 1 bit, 0.1 btc or 1 btc makes no difference. I'm looking at ROI here.
1) ROI is ROI. Whether it's on 1 bit or 1 bitcoin the return percentage is the same.
C’mon, econ girl. Absolute amounts matter, too! If not, please explain to me how I can live on 1 satoshi per day. I like the simple life. And in absolute terms, “ROI” is big on big amounts, just as it’s small on small amounts. So why not go for the big amounts? Why...
Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.
[...]
2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors
...oh. Oh, wait. I never followed the thread where you were selling the script. PLesae tell me, did you ever disclose there that “the script fails 9/10 times”? Or did you disclose to your investors that “Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.”?
I am going to refer to the OP as a 'he' because it's obvious by the used gamer's lingo that he is probably a male in his teenage years.
So, what am I? I don’t know any “gamer’s lingo”. That’s why at first, I had trouble following all the scam accusations about the script. I had to see it explained in terms of maths and probability, without the gambling jargon—oh, then I got it, and cooked up my own Bitcoin mining analogy as laid out on the previous page of this thread[/url]. (Yes, I know that my flip “what am I?” is logically fallacious. But I find it funny.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
