Спасибо Cryptonid за превосходный сервис!!! Обменял битки и получил бонус 7%  , остался очень доволен обменом.Рекомендую.  |
|
|
|
Satoshi is a real person. He is probably in his early forties. The problem with being an innovative thinker and filthy rich is that you get bored unless you're keeping yourself busy.
So, he is likely to be working somewhere in the technology world.
What if you accidentally figure out the guy you've been working with (sitting next to, is a customer, is a consultant, is your client, etc) is actually Satoshi.
What would you do?
I would probably not say too much about it. I would maybe try and learn from him/her since he/she probably has a really interesting perspective on the world and maybe some other inventive ideas too. |
|
|
|
Posting in this topic because its hilarious.
Usually I save the drama for my babys momma, but I just cant resist.
(Not like I care if Theymos cashed out every bitcoin for himself but anyways...)
It'd be funnier if just tragically late, but I'm not sure that's the case here. Looks like they are working on a pokemon go-themed forum based on the epochtalk.com homepage. Glad that got funded . . .  http://epochtalk.com/http://archive.is/0guTC |
|
|
|
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/bitcoin-craig-wrightSentences like "Bloody regenerate things on a single... show me where" and "There are f***ing thousands of transactions on bitcoin every f***ing day signed with pissy f***ing bloody number generators" and "If I hear one more bullshit comment about how I can do it with unknown nodes, you show me proof or you f*** off out" were common.
Occasionally, it looked dangerously close to spilling over into physical violence. I dreaded having to explain it for the police report.  "Say it ain't so!" That article is a fun read. Even if he's not Satoshi, I'd probably have a pretty good time listening to Craig opine, rant, stomp, etc. over a cup of coffee. From what I've read, he does have an interesting background and has been around the block a time or two. Also, of course Satoshi is a lunatic. You'd have to be a little looney to start a project like Bitcoin, work on in secret for however long, and then release it into the wild in a complete-enough state that it starts gaining traction. |
|
|
|
|
I haven't been following this thread, so excuse the question if it has already been asked and answered:
Setting aside areas of technical disagreement for a second, what are the issues/areas for which there is technical agreement?
1. 21M coins
2. What else?
3. etc. ?
|
|
|
|
The most interesting thing about the above-quoted list is that nobody wants to play the obvious zinger in response. Have a little fun. Please.
if your talking about why i switched from talking about hard drive to bandwidth, obviously hard drives are cheap so the other 'cost' is internet speed if your talking about my reasoning to talk about UPLOAD instead of download.. there is a technical reason for this if your talking about why i am mentioning uploading live video. as oppose to a tweet there is an obvious reason for this too the reason i used live streaming is because its a real life scenario people can understand of large data moving.. (upload 10minutes of SD(0.5mbIT/sec) quality video=~37mbyte of data) months ago lauda attempted to debunk WATCHING videos as that was only download bandwidth to which i replied months ago with UPLOAD stats of livestream recording at that time. and today was reminding him of the facts that the internet as a whole is not a problem for 2-4mb blocks upload and by default definitely no issues for download though the internet is proven to be fast for hundred of MILLIONS of people as shown by all the countries doing livestreaming to prove its not a dream. the community accept some places can get over 100mb/s, but as a safe level the majority feel 2-4 is acceptable.. even core believe 4mb is acceptable now. im not going to get into the debate of someone else advocating 20mb, as that is just poking laudas bear and not something the community as a whole could consider right now(though technically possible). i personally have only been advocating for 2mb this year knowing rationally that in the near future technology progresses to allow for more (even if the technology is already available now. its best to stay in the safe zone) in short 4mb is internet safe, 2mb is even safer so data speed debate of 2mb should be considered resolved as it was before late 2015 (even in cores 4mb eyes, 2mb is safe) which is why i laugh hard when lauda was saying 2mb was bad.. yet his friends are saying 4mb is acceptable, and lauda has now backtracked to say 4mb is acceptable "because its core". but 2mb is still bad. even if its a 2mb base 4mb weight linear validation rules.. lauda will still not be happy and will always try to debate some crap to keep core as the overlords, rather than all implementations coming to a joint agreement making all implementations all on the same level playing field coming to a joint consensus, which the community thought we reached before last christmas. and then tried to get core back inline in spring. and then again in summer.. I just mean that Africa is not a country, goober. People are tightly wound these days.  |
|
|
|
The most interesting thing about the above-quoted list is that nobody wants to play the obvious zinger in response. Have a little fun. Please. |
|
|
|
|
Do we know whether Cobra was hacked or something? How can we be certain there is genuine concern about state-sponsored attacks and that yesterday's Cobra is the same a prior Cobras?
@Theymos - Do you guys have a protocol in place in the event one of the bitcoin.org maintainers becomes compromised (not suggesting that happened here - just thinking hypothetically)?
|
|
|
|
What if the attacker is the same ole Satoshi EDIT - Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm not sure it can be proven that there was an attack or anything wrong done by the person/group that initiated theDAO split and kept the original chain going. Hugely complicated and interesting issue, IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
The safe answer is to not trust any exchange. However, Poloniex is easy and convenient, and they've earned some stripes IMHO. I've had zero problems with using Poloniex. In fairness, I've had a few deposits get hung up and when I've emailed support about them (maybe 2 times in last year and half +), I get a response in under .5 hours and the problem gets fixed in that time as well. Like with Cryptsy (who I also had no problems with, and stopped using them when writing on the wall was very clear a few months before their demise), it may help if you have a verified account.
|
|
|
|
|
In some ways Cobra's proposal was inevitable - he or she just so happens to be in a position to have the fortune or misfortune of being credited with that. It also took guts to make it.
All this made me wonder:
1. What would be the best term for an update that includes substituted terms and concepts (e.g., bitcoin as ecash to digital asset)? Ontological hardfork? Doctrinal hardfork? Fundamental hardfork?
2. Does it require at least the same level of consensus as is necessary to hardfork the network, if not more? I would presume yes.
3. How should consensus be signaled in such a fork?
|
|
|
|
I control the Bitcoin network, what are your next steps? To make you prove it. |
|
|
|
The issue in the github thread is that the proposal was not complete because it was/is missing key details - most obviously a draft of a new document. I had some luck engaging w/ Cobra on his/her intentions. I'm hoping he/she comes back to thread to answer the author attribution question. IMHO - an updated white paper could be appropriate, but only if the byline is accurate and only if the old paper is readily available as a historical resource on bitcoin.org. I also would really want to see a bulk of the developers sign off on the new paper first (I don't mean sign the paper, a simple grunt in the affirmative would be fine). Other than that, I think this is a little bit of faux drama prompted by folks being on edge about other stuff - which honey badger don't care about. |
|
|
|
What do you mean? without limit in supply its price is cheaper. Perhaps you mean if it had a massive use.
In real terms it is limited. The small amount generated now is just to keep up with lost coins. Ie people deleting wallets by mistake etc. Exactly. Said another way: The annual growth rate in the total supply of dogecoin will decrease every year in perpetuity from block 600,001+. The key is that the amount of coins per block be more or less fixed in perpetuity - the consequence of which is that the relative effect of mining those coins decreases from one unit of time to the next - also in perpetuity. |
|
|
|
|
scams seem to come in several varieties. here are two that seem pretty common:
1. Plan, program, company, person soliciting money or property with the intent to deceive the person transferring the money or property.
2. Plan, program, company, person soliciting money or property w/ legit intentions, which get abandoned or tainted due to more than simple negligence (e.g., gross negligence/willful and wanton behavior - like ignoring obvious problems brought to your attention, failing to do X which is supremely important to achieving goals such as reviewing code).
Not a scam, but certainly not good:
breaching agreements, project failure. In other words, "scam," as a word, has built in ethical judgment. A person etc is not bad or unethical simply because of failing to meet a previously stated goal.
|
|
|
|
|
There are tons of people named Satoshi. Don't lose the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
Ahem . . . Zooko . . . again  https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/rusty kanzure: oops... yeah, two conversations at once, that got smerged. s/bitcoin/bitlength/. I guess you can still extend if that's valid data, though. 9:23 pm bsm117532 kanzure I thought this was exactly why satoshi used *double* sha256? 9:34 pm zooko rusty: that's "Merkle-Damgård strengthening" and it's not good enough to prevent length-extension attacks. 9:46 pm rusty zooko: you mean you can extend after the bitlength, right? I guess you'd need to prepend the length to make this work, and that has other issues. 9:49 pm bsm117532: I've heard that theory before, but don't understand it. Perhaps there was a concern that some future partial weakness in SHA could deconstruct the hash enough to weaken the PoW? 9:50 pm katu_ i can't readily imagine how. all you can do with le is append, which helps you add data to a commitment (typically secret in hmac-like construct) 9:50 pm theres nothing of the sorts in bitcoin afaik 9:52 pm Taek from what I've gathered, Satoshi was not an amazing cryptographer, he may have done that out of paranoia 9:55 pm katu_ well, his prudence did pay off, especially in relation to SAT mining 9:56 pm zooko Satoshi probably got it from Ferguson and Schneier's book "Practical Cryptography" / "Cryptography Engineering". 9:56 pm katu_ (ie simple means to double the number of rounds, without inventing non-standard hash function) 9:56 pm zooko We also used that construction, which F&S named "SHA256d", in Tahoe-LAFS. Probably . . . |
|
|
|
Well I also hope that bitcoin's price will skyrocket this coming halving. i think it will skyrocket to 1000$ this july 11.  Well it seems hard but it is not impossible. Stop shit-posting |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
