Oh, sort of like how Christians don't believe in Jesus, they believe in God, and Jesus is the same person as God? I never quite understood the Trinity doctrine. Any belief that holds that equivalence is intransitive is hard for a logical mind to grasp.

You mean this guy?

---

Okay.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-fundamental-beliefs.php

http://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-membership.php

You seem to be. Look at your logic. You link to a website that contradicts everything you say about it.

I don't think it's similar at all. The various Christian sects can at least agree on who Christ was and his basic teachings. Even the Muslims and Jews agree on that much.

Which doesn't apply when the definition of the term itself is what's in dispute. I define a Satanist as one who follows the principles laid out in the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, that book being the first and so far only self-contained belief system to use the name Satanism. Like I said, if others want to produce their own original religious text of the same calibre and call it Satanism, then they might have an argument. But none do.

...then they should present evidence of that claim. As far as I can tell, they "updated" LaVeyan Satanism by rejecting it entirely, which I don't think counts as an update.

Neither has places of worship. One of them is an individualistic religion that rejects the notion of regular worship with a congregation, and instead advocates the practice of rituals in one's own home. The other is not a religion at all.

Well, Wikipedia's certainly saying so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religious_parodies_and_satires

It also says they're are a "social movement, advocacy group, and protest group" (as opposed to the Church of Satan, which is a "new religious movement") that was first formed for the specific purpose of protesting the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Which would be fine if they hadn't taken the name of an existing religion which they have nothing to do with. It's like if atheists dressed up as Christian priests as part of some political protest, and people mistook them for an actual Christian denomination. No matter that what they're preaching is totally at odds with what's in the Bible; they have a "right" to call themselves Christians anyway. Then they act surprised when people get offended.

Ostensibly.

Yes. Not all people deserve benevolence and empathy, nor is it possible in practice to even be benevolent and empathic to all people. Anyone who tries will find their benevolence is too dilute to make a difference. Claiming to love everyone is just feel-good talk to make people feel better about themselves. I'm sure you've heard such empty talk before.

Or a lobby group. Strip away the political activism and you'll find that the "Satanic" Temple has nothing else to it. They simply aren't a religion of any sort, and their members aren't Satanists.

I can describe my arse as smelling like lavender but that doesn't make it so. Read the "Satanic" Temple's tenuous tenets and compare it to the Satanic Bible and tell me what, if anything, the two have in common. That's why the Wikipedia article starts with "Not to be confused with Church of Satan."

Because each block refers to hash of the previous one (that's what makes it a blockchain), miners must download and (hopefully) verify the latest block before they can mine the next one. (There's been at least one case where a mining pool decided to skip the verification step (for speed) and lost a huge amount a money by unknowingly mining invalid blocks.)

Multiple transactions with the same inputs is the very definition of double spending and is not allowed, regardless of all other factors. This includes multiple copies of the same transaction. This is also why identical transactions are only possible for coinbase transactions: they can't have the same inputs because they don't have inputs in the first place.

Wrong.

I hate the "Satanic" Temple, because I bothered to research for even 2 seconds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple

They have absolutely nothing to do with LaVeyan Satanism except to insult it, they don't even have much of a philosophy or beliefs of their own, and the beliefs they do have are in many ways diametrically opposed to Satanism (eg, egalitarianism instead of meritocracy). They're just using the name Satan to promote their political agenda (and have been known to involve children in their political protests - can you imagine anything less Satanic than that?), and I don't expect them to last any longer than the many other short-lived pseudo-Satanic groups that have appeared and disappeared over the years. I could take these groups more seriously if they actually produced an original and meaningful canon on the level of LaVey's Satanic Bible, but that would require effort and creativity, and the Dark Lord knows those attributes are in short supply among these pretenders to the throne.

EDIT: Typo.

It's not clear what you're asking, but if you're if you're asking if it's possible for the same transaction to be in two or more blocks, this is not possible for normal transactions, since the same bitcoins cannot be spent twice (blocks which include transactions doing so are invalid and will be rejected by all nodes).

This does not apply to coinbase transactions (which generate new bitcoins instead of spending existing ones) - different blocks can have (and, indeed, have had) identical coinbase transactions, which is a problem since only one of them can ever be spent, for the above reason. Miners lose money if they erroneously produce such transactions.

I'll thank you to read the entire thread before replying.

It doesn't. Check the balance of your accounts, not your addresses. The change produced by a transaction from account A will be counted in account A, regardless of what addresses are involved.

It is useful if you are managing bitcoins belonging to multiple people, and need to keep track of who has how much (though an external database works just as well). It is not designed for any other purpose. What are you trying to use it for?

Not a bug. Account addresses are for receiving only. When sending, addresses are not associated with accounts at all, and this is by design. In your example above, if account B sends BTC0.1, it may, for reasons of transaction priority, or no reason at all, decide to take the coins from the address associated with account A. But account A still has BTC0.5 to spend, by using the coins from the address associated with account B plus its change. Anyone who doesn't understand how accounts work should not be using them.

2 oz Gin
1 oz Bourbon
2 oz Sarsaparilla
1/3 oz Absinthe

Shake and serve on the rocks.

(About the odd measure of absinthe: I originally thought I should use 1/2 oz, but I decided I'd better actually make the drink instead of just imagining it while staring at the bottles in my liquor cabinet, and it turns out you always need less absinthe than you imagine, even when you know how potent the stuff is and already took that into consideration. This is why I can't be a mixologist.)

Yes, I do believe I explained it.
Perhaps you're illiterate?

Rudimentary concepts such as the fact that the binary representation of the document in question hasn't even been identified? And that there are infinitely many possible representations? I agree, if you don't understand such concepts, there is no point in wasting time discussing anything with you.

No, you're the one wasting my time. I don't have to explain anything. You do. And you're not. I can only assume by your lack of explanation that you can't produce one.

I assume you know nothing, so knowing more than that isn't much of an accomplishment. But please go ahead and demonstrate your accomplishment. We're all waiting.

No, you couldn't, and I explained why.

I've never heard of that word in this context. What does it mean?

Actually, it's not obvious at all why you asked the question, hence my glib answer. Your nonsense isn't worth my time.

Why should I? I'm not the one making outlandish claims about the subject. You are, and I doubt (based on the fact that your posts are nonsense) that you have actually researched it in any capacity.

You're welcome.

I'm not surprised. There's plenty of good news (notably Steam and CME) and I have a hunch that the current rally (temporarily stalled by the uncertainty surrounding the Craig Wright debacle) will only accelerate, probably past US$600 and maybe much higher. Kwukduck's post fully confirms my hunch.

He didn't disclose anything else about the document, which is why it's impossible to disprove any claim about it.

I never claimed that it was, nor do I even care. Why would I if it doesn't contain any evidence for any claims that have been made?

Non sequitur.

I didn't care to answer it since it is irrelevant. I have explained the most likely reason why double SHA256 was used, which is what you asked.

Alright, fine. The answer is yes. I do understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds. It would be pretty meaningless if it was.

It says more about yours than mine.

Such a script would prove nothing, since you know nothing about the input Craig allegedly used. If you feed the script a plain ASCII text file, you'll just claim he might have used UTF16. Or a PDF file, which can altered in infinitely many ways without affecting the text content. Or a JPEG of a photograph of a printout of the document. Or something else entirely. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that such a hash collision exists, not on anyone else to prove that it doesn't.

Because double hashing is routinely employed to avoid preimage and length extension attacks, whether such protection is needed or not. Multiple iterations do not make it more vulnerable (again, if you believe it does, it's up to you to produce evidence of such a vulnerability), so there's no downside except for a slight reduction in performance.

No, it isn't. It would a problem if I did like you, since anyone who does must be a poor judge of character.

I don't have a webcam.

Hey, I'm man enough to take a few insults, but now you've gone too far. I am not a disingenuous fucker. My sex life has always been genuine. Are you just jealous?

How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. There is no technical argument to be made against the ravings of a deranged lunatic.