That won't be as good a comparison as you might think - it would be more accurate to compare total submitted shares divided by difficulty to total blocks solved if you want to look at luck from a miner payout point of view rather than as a proportion of network luck. I'll look at adding something more like what you want next week.
Ah, yes, good point..! |
|
|
|
If you look at the original, they alternate between capitalizing and not capitalizing bitcoin. Review what was actually said about MtGox and then contemplate what information you would have included about them had you written the report.
See below: (U//FOUO) This assessment will not address malicious actors outside of the cyber underground,
such as traditional organized crime groups, extremist groups, or child predators. Throughout the
paper, the term “Bitcoin,” when capitalized, refers to both the open source software used to
create the virtual currency and the P2P network formed as a result; “bitcoin” using lower case
refers to the virtual currency that is digitally traded between users. Though they don't hold to this convention in every single case, I think it was just bad proofing on their part. Can't make it perfect, I guess. But I partially suspect multiple writers simply because of slight variations like this (and varied spacing in the footnote references) between the earlier and later parts of the document. None of you who are calling fake have even explained what possible motive a person could have to fake a document like this? Why on earth would someone spend hundreds of hours to go through the complexity and detail that is shown in this document? Likely, the language that "comes from the forum" is because the writer(s) of the document spent a good deal of time on the forum for research. They picked up on the lingo, such as the "stabilization" of bitcoin, etc, because that is what is talked about. They have at least 2 endnotes that reference threads in the forum as well. Ok, great. Now how about my second point? You'll have to clarify your position. I'm not going to guess what your thoughts are about it, then try to refute those guesses. That's just silly. What would you have written about Mt. Gox that wasn't there? |
|
|
|
If you can't circumnavigate around the bot issue, embrace it! Base whatever business model you have in mind, but center it around players/users using bots. May the best bot win! You can even easily incorporate checkers, backgammon, etc., all of which would be bots vs bots. Now, if you could somehow get those watching the games involved in some way, having them inject bitcoins into the mix, let's say, you'll really have something to write home about.
~Bruno~
Dude, I love it! Some people might manually make the moves in a chess program, while others will program complex bots that actually interact with the web interface itself. People might write bots and sell them to others who want to play, etc. Tweakable variables. |
|
|
|
If you look at the original, they alternate between capitalizing and not capitalizing bitcoin. Review what was actually said about MtGox and then contemplate what information you would have included about them had you written the report.
See below: (U//FOUO) This assessment will not address malicious actors outside of the cyber underground,
such as traditional organized crime groups, extremist groups, or child predators. Throughout the
paper, the term “Bitcoin,” when capitalized, refers to both the open source software used to
create the virtual currency and the P2P network formed as a result; “bitcoin” using lower case
refers to the virtual currency that is digitally traded between users. Though they don't hold to this convention in every single case, I think it was just bad proofing on their part. Can't make it perfect, I guess. But I partially suspect multiple writers simply because of slight variations like this (and varied spacing in the footnote references) between the earlier and later parts of the document. None of you who are calling fake have even explained what possible motive a person could have to fake a document like this? Why on earth would someone spend hundreds of hours to go through the complexity and detail that is shown in this document? Likely, the language that "comes from the forum" is because the writer(s) of the document spent a good deal of time on the forum for research. They picked up on the lingo, such as the "stabilization" of bitcoin, etc, because that is what is talked about. They have at least 2 endnotes that reference threads in the forum as well. |
|
|
|
It was a nice run for my OCR software - only took a few minutes to make into a proper document.
Post it up - let's compare.  |
|
|
|
Did you type it or OCR it? I have a copy in Word and took me a few minutes to do.
I typed it, no OCR. OCR introduces too many easily-overlooked mistakes. Especially for something this low-quality, and the smaller font sizes in the text boxes and end notes. It would take me longer to proof an OCR of this than it did to just type it up. OP should send it over to Cryptome for them to host, since all they have is the unreadable version. Will do. EDIT: Ok, I can't find any contact information for Cryptome... what would be the best route to inform them of this updated file? |
|
|
|
C'mon guys, lets post photos that actually have the number in them, that you can see right off the bat without looking hard! (not just model numbers)
That sir, is the beauty of the whole game. Wow, a blank quote, a hanging end-quote tag, and no image. T-T-T-TRIPLE FAIL!   |
|
|
|
|
I would also like to point out the three phone numbers listed at the bottom of page 10. If anyone REALLY wants to confirm legitimacy of the paper, they could simply call those phone numbers, verify the identity of the individuals or departments on the other end of the line, and ask them if they really did publish this paper.
|
|
|
|
|
As I mentioned in the other thread, I just don't see this as being a fake, especially after spending so much time reading through each and every word typing it up. The endnotes are too carefully constructed and accurate. The theme of the paper is about criminal uses of Bitcoin, not about Bitcoin being criminal itself. The wording chosen is consistent with other high-level government writings.
Anyone looking to gain financially from such a move (as julz suggests) would be much better served spending those hundreds of hours elsewhere. Anyone looking to distribute FUD about bitcoin would likely spend much less time on such a project, or their motives would be called into question. Why would you be so adamantly against Bitcoin as to spend hundreds of hours crafting a fake FBI document? Especially a document that focuses solely on the potential criminal uses of Bitcoin, and not Bitcoin itself?
I just don't see it. Certainly, people are welcome to have their own opinions, and I certainly have no proof that this is a legitimate FBI document. I am just throwing my opinion out there, and in my opinion, this is definitely not a fake.
|
|
|
|
|
9.2 out of 10 BTC received - only need 0.8 BTC more.
|
|
|
|
|
This makes me even more interested to run my singles against each pool and see if my payouts match your calculated luck. Now that should be VERY telling!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - 8.2 of 10 BTC bounty has been received or pledged.
|
|
|
|
|
Most think it is real (myself included, especially after reading it in excruciating detail while retyping it), but there are a handful who think it is fake. I just don't see how/why someone would go through as much detail as they did for a faked document. What would the motive have been? The endnotes by themselves imply hundreds of hours of research just to gather the information, let alone write the rest of the paper. If it is a fake, it's a dang good one, and whoever did it wasted a whole lot of time in creating it.
Document is proofed and ready to be released upon completion of the bounty. Bounty is currently at 6.2 out of 10 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Document is complete - I just need to proof it all. Shouldn't take too long...
|
|
|
|
Also, what is a good file host service to use? I am not a fan of yourfilelink.com, so if someone wants to suggest a better service and/or rehost the sample elsewhere, that is fine.
Just use google docs. Oh, ok. EDIT: I don't really like it... Google Docs renders some things differently, and doesn't seem to allow for download of the original file. |
|
|
|
Thanks rjk, 6 BTC of the 10 BTC bounty fulfilled. Per D&T's suggestion, I am posting a free sample of the first three pages of content (not including the cover page). This is just the .docx file. http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=801565Also, what is a good file host service to use? I am not a fan of yourfilelink.com, so if someone wants to suggest a better service and/or rehost the sample elsewhere, that is fine. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks D&T
That's 4.5 BTC sent or pledged.
I am through page 15/20 at this point, on to the Endnotes (the most time-consuming portion).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
