|
There's no difference between an activation threshold of 75% (or 51%) and 95% because pro-fork miners can just start rejecting blocks from anti-fork miners to increase the percentage. Miner voting is a stupid concept for hardforks -- it's the economy that matters in a hardfork, not miners.
|
|
|
|
Has anyone with high technical knowledge taken the time to deconstruct his post point-by-point? He does make some interesting points that even I (not by any means a "big blockist") feel should be addressed.
Pick out a few of the more interesting bits and I'll respond to them. Why would Satoshi not sign his post, thus proving that it really is him? Surely that would be a big blow to the ph0rkers, no? - Satoshi never signed his posts. - He likely wouldn't want it to look like he was dictating Bitcoin's future. |
|
|
|
|
Please, do fill us all in.
As far as I know, Paraipan died and took the 250 BTC he was holding for the forum with him. I put some effort into trying to locate his family or something, but I couldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
That's annoying. Don't do that. People who do that might be banned. (If people start doing it habitually, I'll stop it technologically.)
|
|
|
|
Love to hear the old-timers' opinions. It's only been like 6 years, but 2009 seems so long ago in bitcoin-time.
My faith in humanity has already been shaken and that's why I don't leave my abode much. I shall make this my reading for tonight--I didn't know who Mike Hearn was and why all these threads had been created based on what he's been spouting. Oh well, people come and go.
Hearn's article is almost entirely inaccurate/misleading FUD. It's possible that there will be some turbulence if we can't scale fast enough, but the Core devs have a plan that I think will probably alleviate problems in the short-term, and will almost certainly allow for massive scaling in the long-term. This plan includes an effective max block size increase to 2 MB in ~April. If any serious problems occur, it will be due to altcoins-in-disguise like XT and Classic trying to move Bitcoin development from something based on technical merit to something based on dictatorship or popularity. Someone who could very well be Satoshi said: I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold. |
|
|
|
How/what would you advice someone to research or explore to get knowledge of at least 80% of the transactions,or simply they are not allowed to ?
I don't publish info about individual transactions. You can see more-or-less how much BTC the forum has by looking at the treasury addresses. However, only about $50,000 was donated according to BTC price at time of donation. While I am appreciative to donators, the millions of dollars made later were from capital gains and ad income -- things that I am primarily responsible for. So don't go around acting like this is some big swindle, especially when I actually am reinvesting all profit into the forum and the community, as it says on the donation page. For the /r/Bitcoin ad fund, there were three spends: - A Reddit ad campaign - Sponsorship of a Starcraft tournament - Sponsorship of Axiom eSports The "magic Internet money" ad is provided free by Reddit. |
|
|
|
Maybe it was taking millions of dollars from reddit?
The Reddit ad fund received a total of 22.51357574 BTC, of which 12.15558457 BTC is still unspent and available, as stated in the /r/Bitcoin sidebar. Addresses do not "naturally" send money or have balances: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/From_address . It's possible to make it so that an address's "balance" contains meaningful info, and some broken wallets do this by default, but I don't. For any of my addresses except ones that I specify, you should behave as if this is an address in a Coinbase wallet or something. All block chain information except for received amount is meaningless. I've explained this many times over the course of years... |
|
|
|
AFAIK other mods too are on average here 2hrs a day, so that shouldn't be a problem. And this is a paid job, considering you are also promoted to Patroller(can moderate newbs in other sections) , if you moderate consistently you will get a good portion of the 25% of the ad funds.
There is a very small amount of payment, but you're going to be disappointed if you apply for just that reason. Also, local mods don't immediately become patrollers. That's a separate thing. |
|
|
|
|
That seems like too many to start with. I'm not sure how popular this board is going to be. Maybe pick four of those.
|
|
|
|
As a firm supporter of Bitcoin Classic, I am honored to be a moderator of the official Bitcoin Classic subreddit. I am however disappointed that smartfbrankings changed my original sidebar text. Gavinista 9 months ago: "We need 20MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"
*Bitcoin continues to thrive*
Gavinista 6 months ago: "We need 20MB 8MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"
*Bitcoin continues to thrive*
Gavinista 1 month ago: "We need 20MB 8MB 2MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!" There is only one plausible/parsimonious explanation for such an utter lack of concern about their continual loss of credibility, which is that they are executing a 'thin wedge' strategy. The Gavinistas would be happy with 1.001MB blocks, because such a hard fork would get their camel's nose into the tent. The point isn't larger blocks will save Bitcoin from certain dooom, it's to undermine the socioeconomic majority's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient system. It's about sending a message, that Bitcoin's engineering decisions can be controlled by manufacturing dissent. LOL, very true. "Oops, I guess we would've destroyed Bitcoin if the last coup attempt had suceeded. But we definitely have it right this time, promise!" I hope that they get 75% miner support right away so that I can watch their miners saying, "Oh shit, we just mined a ton of worthless altcoins!". |
|
|
|
|
I saw it recently. I went into it very pessimistic because I hated J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. I thought that this Star Wars movie would be similar: mindless boring action, completely unlike the originals, and packed full of stupid references. I was pleasantly surprised, however. It captured a lot of the feeling of the original trilogy. I loved it. I especially like how it focuses so much on the characters. Some say that it was a copy of A New Hope, and while there are definite similarities, I didn't find it distracting at all. All of the criticism is just nitpicking, really. Everything has flaws, and there were a handful of brief moments where I cringed a bit at something stupid, but I definitely recommend seeing this film if you like the original trilogy.
I think this is the first film I've seen where I've wanted to watch it again so soon after seeing it. I'm tempted to go see it again once it hits the cheap seats. And I'm (cautiously) very excited for the sequels.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that some (most?) miners start at 0 and go through them sequentially, so I'd guess that lower nonce values are more common in the block chain.
If you're trying to solve a block, any nonce value will have equal probability of solving it. If you can find any bias or pattern, then you've demonstrated a weakness in SHA-256.
|
|
|
|
Okay I give up. What the hell is Bitcoin Ultra?
It's a softfork of XT which makes it compatible with Bitcoin, and also removes all of its other ill-advised changes.  |
|
|
|
Just took a look at new forum.Fast and Sleek Design!The End of Signature Campaigns ?
Signatures are going to be added back in at some point. Maybe the height limit will be smaller than here, though. I thought about removing signatures, since that'd really clean things up, but I decided that signatures (and especially sig campaigns) are too important to the culture here to remove. The final theme definitely won't be this orange color. I think I'll probably start out with something vaguely blue as a callback to this forum, and see how that goes. |
|
|
|
Is this currently possible? This setup would allow people to significantly reduce the risk of the escrow running away/colluding to steal funds because various escrow agents could be selected whose locations are known to be in geographically diverse places in the world.
Yes, but it's not a normal script, so actually creating and spending that output would require some work. Untested script: scriptPubKey:
<payerPubKey>
TOALTSTACK
<payeePubKey>
TOALTSTACK
IF
2
FROMALTSTACK
FROMALTSTACK
2
CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
ELSE
1
FROMALTSTACK
FROMALTSTACK
2
CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
2
<escrow1PubKey>
<escrow2PubKey>
<escrow3PubKey>
3
CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
ENDIF
scriptSig (normal case):
0 <payerSig> <payeeSig> TRUE
scriptSig (escrow case):
0 <escrowSig1> <escrowSig2> 0 <payee or payer sig> FALSE This can be packed into a P2SH script, so sending money to the escrow contract would just be sending to an address starting with 3. Creating the P2SH address and spending money sent to it would be the difficult parts. (There's code floating around for doing this stuff, but I don't think there's even any CLI utility for it.) |
|
|
|
From the looks of it, master-P had used a number of his alts to have several people send BTC to master-P, as escrow, primarily regarding currency exchange deals, and then his alts would stop responding to the bitcoin sellers. In these cases, master-P would still be able to steal the funds if a 2-of-3 multi-sig was being used because he would have had 2 of the keys necessary to spend funds from the multi-sig address(es).
Yeah, that is a risk, but it should be pretty rare. A more secure escrow contract would be something like (payer AND payee) OR ((payer OR payee) AND 2-of(escrow1, escrow2, escrow3)). I would also question as to how effectively someone with little/no technical knowledge would be able to create multi-sig addresses, and spend funds from multi-sig addresses (remember there is a reason why wallet services like blockchain.info are so successful, and it is not because of their security record). A detailed tutorial would help. If people can just mechanically follow the tutorial without really understanding the steps, that'd be better than nothing, and it'd be the first step toward real understanding. Maybe someone needs to make a really nice escrow GUI in some wallet or other. I am not sure an escrow agent would want to even attempt, or be available to mediate a transaction if they have not previously acknowledged and understand the terms of a particular trade, as without these details, it would be difficult to mediate a dispute unless one party outright fails to deliver anything at all. It might not be such a great idea, but I'd expect some to do it, since it's so easy. The escrow agent would just have to publish a public key and give their terms ("In case of a dispute, contact me here: ... If I have to decide your case, I will only sign transactions which assign me exactly 5% of the final amount as a fee. ....") |
|
|
|
I don't see any link IP-wise to webbassets, coltlover, or jonesz, but that doesn't rule them out. One more thing... Can you provide the general location of Master-P's address? Can you verify that the IP address is in Ontario, Canada? Specifically around the town of Aurora and Newmarket?
I don't like to give out that sort of info to the general public. People who were affected should get in contact with police in your own jurisdiction, and then once you're talking to an investigator and you've explained all of the background, tell them to email [theymos at mm dot st] from an official police email address, and I'll give them master-p's IP addresses. No warrant or subpoena is required when the target is a probable scammer, and the police can be anywhere in the world. Please don't put my email address in your initial report, though, or else they'll get confused and email me about the case in general, which I don't know much about and don't have time to deal with -- all I'm going to do is provide raw data. I wonder why is he hiding his email address as we all know about it? GOSH! He is trying to delete all evidences that he was account holder of master-p and police might spare him if anyone sues him now. Can theymos revert the changes back anyhow?
I have his old email address. Also, if he deleted or edited any of his posts, I have the old versions. |
|
|
|
|
I don't have any interest in that. And it probably wouldn't help much anyway. Identity information is fairly easy to fake, and it doesn't even act as much of a deterrence. pirateat40's identity has always been known, and it neither prevented his scam nor has it helped his victims get their money back. It's looking like master-p will probably be located. And there are several others. It's actually a bit rare for scammers to be totally anonymous, since being totally anonymous is difficult. It's impossible to identify all long-term con men before they scam.
Sending all of the money to an escrow is ridiculous when you can do a Bitcoin smart contract. For example, it would make far more sense to do a 2-of-3 multisig among the payer, the payee, and the escrow agent. When the transaction goes well, the payer and payee will just both cooperate to release the money, and the escrow doesn't need to be involved at any point in the process. If the transaction goes poorly, the escrow can cooperate with either the payer or payee to send the money to that person. At no point can the escrow single-handedly steal the money. And since you might not even need to talk to the escrow agent at any point in a transaction, it should be quicker and less expensive. More complicated smart contracts than this are possible, but this m-of-n multisig is very basic and is supported by several wallets including Bitcoin Core. (Though Core still lacks a GUI for it.) Someone should make a detailed tutorial for all steps of this process in a number of wallets, and then we can sticky it somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for stepping theymos, would you say this , as described by QS is what happened? Not questioning him or something but confirmation from you would be great Edit: By which I am hinting to the fact that he was trying to pull other scams from his alts, a large exit scam at once. Seems plausible. You'd have to ask BadBear about the details of the recovery. I hadn't known about QuickSeller's list of possible alts previously, so my list is independent evidence. I haven't read much of this thread and I don't know many details behind this case, so I'm not going to try to draw any defninitive conclusions from this data. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
