|
I hardly and partially understand why a DT member is accepted as DT with red tag -- because the red tags can be incorrectly given sometimes... But what I really don't understand is why DT members are accepted while being banned. This doesn't seem right to me.
|
|
|
|
There could be a better thread for my question, yet I would like to raise a question that came into my head while I was reading OP, which I understood attempted to suggest both an ideological underpinning to bitcoin that was achieved through technological progressions and/or improvements to what ended up being bitcoin.
So, when you described b-money in OP, you suggested that it seemed to have a lot of bitcoin's attributes but it was both subject to sybil attacks, but also suffered from the problem of NOT being coded or implemented. Bit Gold was also subject to sybil attacks, and I am suspecting that the network of proof of work was not decentralized enough in bitgold so it ended up having potential hashpower manipulation vulnerabilities?
A question came in my thinking regarding what aspects of bitcoin exactly helped bitcoin to overcome the deficiencies of b money and Bit Gold? [...]
Sorry for the delay in answering this... The answer to this question is not an easy one and I had to think a lot on how to put things in a proper manner here, in order to be easily understood by any reader. In order to understand how Bitcoin overcame the problems presented by Bit Gold and b-money, let's first analyze these problems. Regarding Bit Gold, let's use as reference its white paper and Nick Szabo's blog entry related to his invention. Some of the problems are emphasized by the author. I highlighted below just two of his observations. (3) Representations of ownership of these solution bits are stored in a public manner, e.g. in a distributed property title registry I also originally suggested (both off the list and in an impractical but privacy-protecting form I described on the list) that publically known levels of wealth can be represented by a system of publicly shared books. However, I think using this approach and discarding the solution bits raises several unnecessary problems. [...]
A potential big problem remains: the possibility of a trade secret algorithmic or hardware breakthrough. The world lacks a cryptanalytically stable problem. Almost every year there are cryptanalytic breakthroughs speeding up cryptanalysis of particular block ciphers or hash functions by \( 2^{10} \) or more, and there are no proven lower bounds precluding such a breakthrough for any cryptographic algorithm. However, Bit Gold's biggest issue is best explained on Bitcoin Wiki: Transfer with prevention of double-spending, via a Byzantine-resilient peer-to-peer method, is described in another linked article which calls the method secure property titles and proposes also applying it to other kinds of digital property, such as domain names. However, this Byzantine method relies on a quorum of network addresses rather than a quorum of (hash) computing power, so unlike bitcoin it is vulnerable to Sybil attacks. On the other hand, b-money had its own flaws, part of them being also admitted by Wei Dai. Let's use the description from weidai.com. You can see there that Wei Dai actually made two proposals (both related to b-money), not just one. I will actually describe two protocols. The first one is impractical, because it makes heavy use of a synchronous and unjammable anonymous broadcast channel. However it will motivate the second, more practical protocol. The first solution was based on the possibility that all the network participants held a copy of a same ledger, similar to Bitcoin protocol. Also similar to Bitcoin, there was no central authority needed for b-money, the protocol was decentralized and the network users would update their own version of the ledger after each transaction. But this first proposal of b-money did not solve the double-spending problem, as the transactions could not be broadcasted through the entire network. The second solution for b-money was a client-server approach, where the servers would be the ones holding the ledger. The servers were entitled to publish the transactions while the clients were responsible for verifying the correctness of the information provided by the server.
Bitcoin took the best from all the previous proposals. With other words, we can say that Satoshi learned from the mistakes made by his predecessors and made sure that he won't repeat them. He used HashCash, proof-of-work, 0 central authority, public/private keys and a distributed ledger - which came to be known as the Blockchain (although this term was never used in the Bitcoin white paper). But his innovation was that he used the chain of signatures which link with hash functions every coin (transaction) to its previous owner (author) in an unbroken chain which ends at the generation of the respective coin. Practically, nobody can falsely allege that he owns a coin, as the real owner can sign a message from the transaction which attributed the coin to him, proving that the other one is an imposter. And the importance of this invention can be seen now, many years after Bitcoin was launched, as you know: CSW is trying in vain to steal Satoshi's identity and also to convince people that he owns several of Bitcoin's first addresses -- addresses which are supposed to belong to Satoshi; actually no matter to whom they belong, it is certain they don't belong to CSW as he is unable to sign a message from them. Furthermore, he was ridiculed by the real owner of such address, which signed a message from his address, saying "Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't have the keys used to sign this message.". Furthermore, the recently moved 50 BTC from the address created in 2009 ( movement observed also by many forum users) were contained in an address previously mentioned by CSW as belonging to him. The movement of these coins by their real owner proved that he didn't control that address. This concept, which proves 100% the real owner of a coin, was not present in the previous electronic money proposals. Excepting all these, Bitcoin also managed to avoid the 51% attacks. As Satoshi had forseen the need for proving the ownership (described above) and many other technological (but also political and ideological issues) which could appear after offering his brilliant invention to the world. He also anticipated that Bitcoin could become the subject of various types of attacks, one of them being the so-called 51% attack. For those which don't know, a 51% attack represents an attack to the network, the attack being performed by a miner (or a group) having more than 50% of the total hash power of the entire network. In such cases (which in Bitcoin network's case the chances are astronomically low of occurring), the respective miner would have absolute power over the protocol, including but not limited to: stopping other miners from finding new blocks, find all the blocks by himself and obtain all the mining rewards, rewriting the blockchain history, double-spending etc. (more details can be found on Bitcoin Wiki). Satoshi knew that such attack could occur and implemented two methods for mitigating the risk, as it follows: 1. He detailed an incentive in the white paper meant to keep honesty among the network participants: "The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.". Besides, regarding double spending and attacks, the white paper also details the following: "We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU proof-of-worker. As long as a majority of CPU proof-of-worker is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure." 2. The second measure was not based anymore on users' honesty, but rather on code: Bitcoin is programmed to make it more difficult the process of finding new blocks as more hash power is brought inside the network. Practically, the more the nodes are, the more difficult the mining process gets. And, as a consequence, as the network expands more and more, it would be way more difficult for an attacker to control more than 50% of the network's hash power *. Regarding this second solution, laszlo ( the pizza guy) alleged in recent CoinTelegraph article that Satoshi told him at some point that he has coded a mining software for GPUs and he was prepared to switch the actual (at that moment, of course) CPU miner to the GPU software, if he really had to defend the network. Of course, the defense would mean to raise exponentially the difficulty, as the GPUs have much more computing power than the CPUs. Laszlo, which according to his topic from May 2010 might have been the first developer (excepting Satoshi) of such mining software for GPUs, could have said the truth or could have lied in the interview. But what's certain is that Satoshi had two ways for avoiding these attacks in Bitcoin network, this being an aspect where Bit Gold and b-money were vulnerable. I hope the above mentioned explanation answers your question.
* It happened in Bitcoin history for an entity to have more than 50% of the total hash power, but fortunately no attack occurred. In 2014, Ghash.io had 55% of Bitcoin's hash power, for almost 24 hours. Fortunately, Ghash.io agreed to reduce its hash power in order to ensure the community that it has no intention of a 51% attack. Excepting Ghash, I also remember that at one time an individual miner had on his own more than 50% of Bitcoin's hash rate. If I remember well, it was the GPU mining era. But I really can't remember his name, in order to mention it here. If any other forum member remembers this incident, please share this miner's name and I'll update my post. However, I am certain that I read that a while ago, but no matter how hard I search now on Google, I don't find anything anymore. I also remember that in the respective article which I read years ago, the miner was mentioned by his nickname, if that helps. ConclusionA 51% attack could have been performed in the past at least one time (two times, I my memory is correct), but fortunately it didn't happen. Ghash and that individual miner were not interested in such attacks. But at that time the network was way smaller than it is now. In the present is almost impossible to assist at such attack on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I would rather agree with strict rules in registering (not ranking up) in this forum, such as applying KYC or other strict rules before registering or members who have joined for a long time (no difference)..
[...] I suggest that you read topic made by @1miau Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless where it is nicely explained dangers of giving your documents and info to 3rd parties, and that s not as good and effective as you might think. KYC is not a solution, if anything it is part of the problem. Additionally to 1miau's very thorough topic, I'd suggest also a topic of mine which depicts other dangers associated with KYC: Governs are coming for the traders!. To be more precise, the topic shows the great dangers which may occur once that the govern has your personal information -- personal information given willingly (through KYC) by the people to centralized exchanges or banks. I believe the topics are complementary about the dangers determined by KYC, each of them covering different aspects. |
|
|
|
I just watched recently a movie starring Jake Gyllenhaal: Enemy. And I tried two more TV Series: Locke & Key and Warehouse 13. Both series are somehow similar to the three-episodes series The Lost Room, mentioned by me above, which is a must-watch.
Tenet was delayed again: the initial launch date was July 17th, 2020, then it was postponed for two weeks and not it should launch on August 12th, 2020. Let's see if this date will be the final one.
I just updated the Moviemaniacs Gang with all the contributors from last month. We have 16, reaching a total amount of 123 members in our gang! More details here. |
|
|
|
|
Update (July 1st, 2020): just added the contributors of last month to OP.
Here they are (16 new members): -CryptoViking-, AnhEmXe, Bbee001, cha.young, Cryptobd24, FIFA worldcup, Fredomago, IIV, localoca, mediaBuzz, Mehedi72, Metamorphosis20, Pamadar, raresfranky, tnrmedia, Tomcolor.
Welcome to our gang!
|
|
|
|
|
Done! Thank you for pointing this out and for reminding me. I didn't use the width setting as I cropped a lot from the images and I thought they were small enough.
I am using the mobile now, not a desktop, and I can't see if the image is too big. However, the width is set now to 250.
|
|
|
|
If you want horror, I thing should go for this:
The grudge
The Ring
Poltergeist
All the movies of above and their sequels / remakes are very good indeed. For the horror fans I have to say though they the above titles represent actually more movies, as it follows: The Grudge: it started actually with the Japanese movie Ju-on: The Grudge (2002), followed by Ju-On: The Grudge 2 (2003). These movies were followed by a Hollywood remake: The Grudge (2004), along with its sequels - The Grudge 2 (2006) and The Grudge 3 (2009). Another remake was launched on January 3rd, 2020, named also The Grudge. The Ring: it also started with a Japanese movie, named Ringu (1998). This movie had a sequel - Ringu 2 (1999). The idea was taken then by Hollywood, which launched The Ring (2002) and The Ring Two (2005). The last part of this sequel - Rings (also known as The Ring 3) - was launched in 2017. Poltergeist: this is another great horror movie, launched in 1982. A remake of this movie was launched in 2015. I'd suggest to watch all of the above movies, including the Japanese versions. They'll worth your while  |
|
|
|
I just tried two of the quizzies and it seems I'm pretty prepared. Not 100% though, but almost It's been an interesting test. Thanks dkbit98! |
|
|
|
I believe you are right. Thank you Mr. President for honoring us with your presence. To all the others, thank you as well for contributing to this topic. In the end, the president did not any mental disorder Locking the topic now. |
|
|
|
Ohoooo! Felicitaaari! Ma bucur ca ai reusit! Acum avem si noi inca un membru Hero in sectiunea romaneasca, sectiune care este foarte lacunara la membri activi de ranguri superioare Acum sa ai grija de el si sa nu-l mai pierzi |
|
|
|
So yeah to trust satoshi would be risky.
To invest long term hoping to reach 50k would be risky. Satoshi never asked anyone to invest hoping to reach 50k. I don't think he even cares about the fact that he's a billionaire in most currencies. He created something really cool, and left it to the world to use. This discussion reminded me about some of satoshi's words of wisdom. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
The quote is from another context, but these words apply here. P.S.: with this occasion I also learnt how to quote locked topics |
|
|
|
The only coins proven not to be spendable are the 50 BTC rewarded for the Genesis block (block 0)
I think he meant the Genesys block, yes. Some call it block 0 while others call it block 1, as it is actually the first mined block. He didn't troll you, did he? He was fine with the explanation which you were looking for.
He didn't troll me, yes...But his explanation was in a very ironical manner, which was not the case here...He thanked me for bringing tge topic to his attention then he complained for receiving the email notification while having "the beauty sleep", like I could know at what time he received it (also I doubt that an email notification can wake up anyone); then he talked about the legs of his secretary and so on...trolling, but at a high degree level, not as a regular troll, as suchmoon explained. |
|
|
|
Daca intri pe Olx la acest link: https://m.olx.ro/oferte/q-display-allview-p4 vei gasi o multime de display-uri. Problema e daca vor accepta vanzatorii aceasta forma de plata Daaca negociezi bine s-ar putea sa ai sanse. Iti tin pumnii! |
|
|
|
|
Hello Brainboss, I did not mean to upset you and I understood that the offends prior the announcement are invalid. I made the analysis for things to be more transparent also for the other participants thus they'll have an idea about those trying to cheat the rules.
About not counting my posts...if that's your decision I'll have to live with it, aren't I? Although this is disappointing, as I spent hours for those analysis which were supposed to help.
But no good deed goes unpunished, right?
|
|
|
|
Alrite alrite. I am hear now so please calm your tits.
Well that was a sort of veni, vidi, vici, wasn't it? presduterte is a bit of a contrarian troll but a good one (i.e. the trolling is fairly intelligent and not merely calling your mom a whore).
Suchmoon was right. I didn't know this user. Bringing him here was a waste of time. |
|
|
|
In this case, you should apply following the format from the first page of the topic, not just by only expressing your willing here Post in the following format:User: x
Position to Apply: x
Posts Start: X
Address: (Your BTC Address) Managers tend to accept those which at least read the rules...apparently you didn't bother to do that. |
|
|
|
Link-ul functioneaza, dar nu ai tu acces inca. 1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above.
Iti mai lipsesc 8 merite si 38 puncte de activitate pentru a deveni membru. Punctele de activitate se fac usor, ca trebuie doar sa postezi. Cu meritele e mai greu, ca trebuie sa postezi ceva de calitate si care sa fie apreciat de altii (de cei care ofera merite). Si mai sunt si alte sectiuni pe care le vei descoperi dupa ce vei creste in rang - Serious Discussion si Ivory Tower. Ti.-am trimis un PM. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the helped but I got everything covered and also noted I try as much as I can to follow the ruled made by the campaign owner or previous manager (I have no idea who it belongs to but looking at the rules I'm force to believe it isn't that of @Hhampuz).
You are very welcome I believe the rules were made by Hhampuz's predecessor, which is Lutpin, but can't say for sure.
Following my analysis on Bitvest signature campaign's last 11 weeks, I decided to a similar analysis here as well, also for the last 11 weeks. It is visible that 777 Coin campaign has also several users trying to outsmart the rules by staying inactive in a week then barely meeting the minimum 15 posts requirement. - in round 68, Alveus (Tier C) received a first inactivity warning; in round 69 he was still inactive, he received a second warning and, as a consequence, he was demoted to Tier D. - in round 69, Best Dreams (Tier B), jademaxsuy and Rodeo02 (both from Tier C) received a first inactivity warning; in round 70 they had 27, 17 and respective 15 posts. - in round 70, nakamura12 (Tier C), Sebas.tian and Alveus received a first inactivity warning; in round 71 Alveus received a second warning and was excluded from the campaign; the others had had 18 and respective 22 posts. - in round 71, FIFA World and rdluffy (both from Tier B), Rodeo02 (Tier C), Jeremy and Jateng (both from Tier D) received a first inactivity warning; in round 72 Jeremy received a second warning and was excluded from the campaign; the others had 20, 17, 15 and respective 15 posts. - in round 72, Best Dreams (again, Tier B), Ailurophile, BTCLiz and (again) Sebas.tian (all from Tier D) received a first inactivity warning; in round 73 Best Dreams was again inactive, received a second warning and got demoted to Tier C; BTCLiz left the campaign at her own will while the others received both a second warning and were excluded from the campaign. - in round 73, FIFA Worldcup (again, Tier B), BlackFor3st and (again) Rodeo02 (both from Tier C) received a first inactivity warning; in round 74 FIFA Worldcup had 19 posts, while BlackFor3st and Rodeo02 were again inactive, but for some reason they received again a first warning instead of a second warning thus they were not demoted to Tier D as they should. - in round 74, virasog (Tier B), BitSat19 and (again) Best Dreams (both from Tier C) received a first inactivity warning; excepting them, as mentioned above, BlackFor3st ad Rodeo02 (both from Tier C) received erroneously a first inactivity warning, although this should have been their second warning; as a curiosity, Umerldress (Tier B) appears with only 14 posts but without a warning; in round 75 Best Dreams and BlackFor3st received a second warning (which in BlackFor3st's case is actually the third) and got demoted to Tier C; the others had 17, 17 and respective 18 posts. - in round 75, FIFA Worldcup (for the third time in 5 weeks, Tier B) and jademaxsuy (for the second time, Tier C), received a first inactivity warning; in round 76 they had 17 and respective 15 posts. - in round 76, Umerldress and (for the second time) virasog (both from Tier B), Jateng (for the second time, Tier C), Best Dreams (for the third time received a first warning plus 2 second warnings), BlackFor3st (for the third time received a first warning from which one should be a second warning plus an additional second warning), TeQuiero and xxjumperxx (all four from Tier D) received a first inactivity warning; in round 77 Best Dreams and BlackFor3st received a second warning and were excluded after 6 respective 5 total warnings; Jateng received a second warning and got demoted to Tier D; TeQuiero also received a second warning and was excluded; the others had 18 and respective 19 posts. - in round 77, FIFA Worldcup (for the fourth time in 7 weeks), (the second time) nakamura12 (both from Tier B) and (for the third time) jademaxsuy (Tier C) received a first warning; in round 78 jademaxsuy received a second warning and got demoted to Tier D; the others had 16 and respective 15 posts. - in round 78, Umerldress (for the second time) and (for the third time in last 5 rounds) virasog (both from Tier B), Rodeo02 (for the fifth time receiving a first warning, but one should have been a second warning), mikhailr (both from Tier C) and (for the third time receiving a first warning plus a second warning) Jateng (Tier D) received a first inactivity warning. Conclusions- several users stay inactive in a round then barely meet the minimum requirement in the second round, similar to Bitvest campaign (FIFA Worldcup, Rodeo02, Jateng, jademaxsuy) - Best Dreams and BlackFor3st had 6, respective 5 consecutive weeks of inactivity prior being dropped - those which are mentioned here had the following number of posts (in order from round 68 to 78; those marked with "-" are out of the campaign): - FIFA Worldcup: 19, 17, 20, 0, 20, 0, 19, 0, 17, 0, 16 - Jateng: -, -, 15, 0, 15, 15, 16, 15, 0, 0, 0 - Umerldress: 50, 39, 42, 22, 22, 19, 14, 15, 0, 18, 0 - jademaxsuy: 17, 0, 17, 17, 20, 15, 16, 0, 15, 0, 0 - Rodeo02: 23, 0, 15, 0, 15, 0, 0, 18, 18, 18, 0 - xxjumperxx: -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, 0, 19, 28, - mikhailr: - 34, 60, 60, 26, 60, 60, 37, 15, 24, 0 - nakamura12: 21, 17, 0, 18, 45, 26, 24, 20, 15, 0, 15 - rdluffy: 36, 32, 50, 0, 17, 20, 19, 23, 16, 18, 19 - BitSat19: 23, 40, 38, 31, 17, 30, 0, 17, 17, 27, 35 - Alveus: 0, 0, 0, 0, -, -, -, -, -, -, - - BTCLiz: 0, 16, 30, 30, 0, -, -, -, -, -, - - BlackFor3st: 60, 60, 30, 53, 15, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, - - Best Dreams: 15, 0, 27, 17, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, - - Sebas.tian: -, 0, 0, 22, 0, 0, -, -, -, -, - - Jeremy: 20, 19, 21, 0, 0, -, -, -, -, -, - - Ailurophile: 16, 16, 23, 15, 0, 0, -, -, -, -, - - TeQuiero: -, -, -, -, -, -, -, 0, 0, 0, - - in my opinion, Brainboss should pay most attention to these users (which are still inside the campaign): FIFA Worldcup (by far, the most slippery), Rodeo02 and Jateng (which seem to be almost as slippery as FIFA Worldcup). Best Dreams and BlackFor3st were two other great cheaters, but fortunately they were excluded. |
|
|
|
No misunderstanding here please, the rules hasn't changed.
Maybe the rules can be improved somehow, with lightlord's approval? At least a part of them. For example, the rules related to excluding someone from the campaign. As of now there is only 1 rule for that: if you get negative score level 2 from DT. I believe that users should be dropped also for consecutive weeks of receiving the same warning. Let's take as example the warning for inactivity. As now there isn't any rule for excluding inactive users, let's consider a Tier A inactive user. This user could be excluded after 10 weeks of inactivity! Week 1: first warning; week 2: second warning, this being followed by a demotion to Tier B; week 3: although this is the third consecutive warning, the user receives just a first warning as being his first offense in his new tier; week 4: second warning, followed by a demotion to Tier C; week 5: first warning in his new tier; week 6: second warning, followed by a demotion to Tier D; week 7: first warning in his new tier; week 8: second warning, followed vy a demotion to Tier E; week 9: first warning for his new tier; week 10: second warning, followed by excluding the user from the campaign. Indeed, it never happened something like this, but it could happen. Look at the examples of AlexSimion and gomariah95 posted by me above, which were excluded after 5 weeks of inactivity. They occupied 2 spots for 5 weeks for nothing, as those spots could be used by other members. And in an extreme case, meaning a Tier A inactive user, this means 10 weeks until he can be excluded based on the actual rules. Can this be changed and exclude users after 3 consecutive inactivity warnings? |
|
|
|
In my point of view, he was a troublesome member. The way he post seems so rude for me. I don't even know what's wrong with him. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Filipino community, I want to say sorry. This is so embarassing for all of us because my fellow countrymen became the only one who distrust satoshi. What a shame!  This is a rare sign of education and common sense which I didn't see lately. Your post, which I believe is sincere and expresses a true regret, really touched me! Don't lose this spirit man, it is a rara avis! I take my hat off in front of such good manners. The user logged in the account on 11 June. He has still been around the corner so I think you can try with PM to ask him and his clarification.
Hehe thanks for the tip! Just did it. Let's see if he joins our conversation here. OP can you edit that huge picture? Some members are on very slow or limited internet, and threads like this are loading very slow for them.
Done! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
