You sure?  If I'd been doing the attack and privy to the exploit I'd have slurped up as much as I could and be sitting tight on it now as we sleep.  Only a fool would blow the doors wide open to spend a few BTC from keys one might have obtained.  If heartbleed was an attack it would not have been undertaken by people who want for spending money.

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

To my knowledge, I was the first person to suggest faking out the XT node count with a patch here on trolltalk.  It's a relatively obvious attack, though, so I'm sure that some people had thought of it before.

The counter would be for Hearn to release closed source binaries containing a magic number so that he (alone) could judge when the count of real XT nodes was high enough to start producing bigger blocks and fork the blockchain.  That will allow him to do it on his schedule and his group of friends to make some big bucks whether XT is DOA or not.  And/or he could syncronize it with an event in the mainstream economic system.

It will be interesting to know how many of cypherdoc's minions are willing to run a closed-source precompiled binary.  Of course since most of these nodes are just cranking away as VM's sharing a same processor just to build up a count, it doesn't matter much.  Even cypherdoc would not be stupid enough to have actual BTC on them.

It's worth note that when Satoshi packed up shop he left various things with various people who'd been around since early times.  Hearn didn't get left with dick as I understand things.  One has to wonder if that had something to do with Satoshi not really agreeing with his philosophies or priorities.

I was always resistant to the idea that either Mike or Gavin were a mole, or at some point became one, but one does have to consider the possibility.

That doesn't answer your question though.  I do suspect that some fraction of the most vocal Hearn cheerleaders are formally shilling.  I can think of several ways this could happen:

 - accounts on bitcointalk,org were purchased or hacked.

 - shilling for pay.

 - shilling to have charges of some sort dropped.  Tax evasion high on the list of possibilities.

I've known with high probability since at least the HB Gary Federal hack that sock-puppet software was available and has been purchased by the U.S. govt.  It was therefore interesting to find this amusing little thing:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4zlMkNnn4

Of course it could be a hoax but I have no reason to doubt the validity since I expected it and since I've seen no convincing attempts to debunk it.  The long and the short of it is that our intelligence services have a wide range of interests and missions.  If I were running things I would have had a keen interest in Bitcoin from a very early time, and at least since the time it helped Wikileaks skirt the VISA/PayPal financial blockade.

Sidechains are by definition not inflationary.  That's the point of the two-way peg and is completely elementary.  I know you have at least a working understanding of the meaning of the words 'inflationary' and 'deflationary'.  Thus, I think you are being a lying and deceitful piece of shit.  After the Hashfast shilling funds you pocketed I know you have it in you so that is be far the strongest hypothesis.


With sidechains not only is the total Bitcoin 'market cap' by definition the sum total of the value of all sidechains combine plus the native Bitcoin user's holdings, but fees from every sidechain transaction could be fractional and agragated into a significant per-transaction fee on the Bitcoin network.

Yes, the cut that a sidechain might take would subtract from what Bitcoin operators get for running the native network infrastructure, but sidechains will have to compete with one another, and probably most sidechains will extract value in the manner you bloatchain guys want for Bitcoin (by milking intel out of users) or be run at a loss to further a domain specific goal.  (e.g., I would use a sidecoin akin to what namecoin is doing because distributed and uncensorable domain DNS is something I care about.)

You have never to my recollection answered any of these points.  Whether it is simply because they are above your comprehension, or whether it is because you are focused on your task of getting Bitcoin centralized I do not know.


That's a funny argument to hear from someone who just advocated bloating Bitcoin in order to freeze out Chinese infrastructure providers by exploiting the native bandwidth problems brought on by their national censorship program.

Here again is another area of risk that you studiously ignore;  the idea that network censorship is even possible here in 'the land of the free.'  If it fucks up the Chinese and their ability to run Bitcoin infrastructure, I can promise you that it will do the same only worse here if/when it is put into place.  Again, the idea that it _won't_ be put into place in a fiat economic crisis where crypto-currency is gaining a foothold is absurd to me.  I have to think you at least worry for your stash that such a thing is possible lending more strength to the idea that there is something fishy about your goals here.

I won't even touch on the observation of the absurdity that full nodes and mining distribution will 'spread out' as it becomes more impractical to operate them.  The evidence over the last few years speaks loudly enough, and we are still at 1MB.



The beauty and strength of sidechains is that they are isolated from Bitcoin and Bitcoin is isolated from them.  That is one of the main goals of the project.  A whole sidechain system is just another user to Bitcoin.  People can speculate until the cows come home and I'm sure they will.  Some of them will also fail and/or implode.  The worst that will happen is that some Bitcoin get lost into the ether of nothingness.  That would be deflationary.  Sidechains, just like Bitcoin or gold, are something with certain kinds of risks and things that people need to be appropriately wary of and not lazy in applying a risk management strategy.  No magic bullets.  There are certainly some extra protections though.  At the end of the day they are no stronger than the Bitcoin (or other backing store if you bloatchainers fuck up Bitcoin) which serves as backing.

I can pretty much guarantee that large miners will support whatever-the-fuck those who they rely on will tell them to.  If not, 'poof'.  The notable services such operators rely on are networking provided by global providers (if they are big enough to arrange their own peering, and if not, their more consumer grade ISP) and governments within who's jurisdiction they operate.

Both the corporate network providers and government regulatory and judicial systems are also quite linked to one another, and increasingly with global trade agreements it really does not matter what sovereign governmental structures want anyway and in so does away with pesky democracy and outdated constructs like privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.

edit: fix quotes...again.

Same here within the last half hour that I've been (trying to) use the forum.

My network provider is Viasat.  Obviously this error is from the forum, but it is possible that whatever is going on is aggravated by network problems of one form or another which is why I mention it (and wish others would also.)

Different class.  'Sidecoins' are most accurately described as a proxy for Bitcoin.  Use of sidecoins impacts the macro-economics of Bitcoin in pretty much exactly the way that use of Bitcoin itself does.  'Alts' are completely stand-alone and as such are competitors.  'sidechains' are more like colored-coins and in some ways it might be argued that this is what they are at their core.

Sidechains are a disaster for people hoping to do analytics on the blockchain down to an individual level because they need to tap into every sidecoin's system.  Since some sidechains will be specifically designed to make that a challenge the task becomes impossible.  Disaster!

It cannot really be argued that sidechains are going to steal Bitcoin's thunder by robbing it of transaction fees since everyone on the bloatist side is dead set against meaningful fees.  It's pretty clear to me as someone who has been in the business that to the extent that revenue is anticipated by Bitcoin infrastructure operators, it is to come from harvest of intelligence data and either processing it themselves or selling it to a processor.  This is the way most internet services work these days.

A nicety for some is that the highest value for intelligence comes from 'full capture' so there is an economic incentive to achieve this.  Near-monopolization of operating infrastructure would also would make coin white/black-listing relatively workable just as Mr. Hearn has predicted for years.
 

The economics of 'speculation' in a full-peg environment are no different than people simply using native Bitcoin heavily.  People are perfectly free to speculate in native Bitcoin, and to date that is what has happened in the economy mostly I think.

You bloatcoiners may have plans to implement control measures in XT which preclude speculation as far as I know.  With the infrastructure needed for tainting, control of speculation would, in fact, be tenable.

edit: slight (between ngix gateway errors.)

Most of the 'fans' will read the warnings and say "Ya, that's the idea."

Another fair fraction will say "Whatever.  Where's my paycheck for shilling?"

Yet a third group will say "Whatever.  At least my tax evasion charges have been dropped in exchange for my shilling."

A guy might think from Hearn's 'non-technical' screed that 3 of 5 'core' developers favor his XT fork.  Himself, Garzik, and Gavin.  It's actually one of five since he is in no way one of 'the five', and Garzik is not on-board with his bullshit as much as he seeks to indicate.  Clearly Gavin is 100% with him though.

Doing my best to be objective, I have to say that it seems the case that Gavin's visit to the CFR 'opened his eyes' so to speak.  Whether it got him a job at MIT or whether that was happenstance is not clear.  Indeed, very little has 'been clear' since about the time the Bitcoin Foundation was formed, and this was one of the things that I warned against in stating my opposition to it's formation.

Don't hold your breath.  The goal is to try to appropriate Bitcoin's dominance before it becomes recognized as a viable backing store for a sidechains style ecosystem.  This makes XT be in direct competition with Bitcoin and a mortal adversary.  Making XT a sidechain would make a lot of sense otherwise.  That explains the desperate feel to this effort.  Pulling out all the stops with a swarm of shills, absurdly stretched arguments, blatant fear-mongering, etc.

As I've said before, XT's success in this effort to supplant Bitcoin (which is a remote possibility due to poor timing, but possible due to more-or-less unlimited resources) might actually be a good thing for a subordinate chains ecosystem because it may force a more robust backing solution to be adopted.  Time will tell.

True.  Very few people choose to participate as a percentage of the world's population.  In otherwords, they freely vote with their feet.  For some reason all of the Bloatcoin nitwits think that is going to change after half a decade and jubilation is just around the corner.

Bitcoin has the potential to be very useful for certain things and under certain circumstances.  Indeed, as a backing store for various tuned crypto-currency solutions (aka, sidechains) it would not take anything catastrophic in mainstream-land to create such conditions.  The Bloatcoin guy's tasks are to nuke Bitcoin before or during such a time of need.

Not exactly.  I'd still buy BTC if I had none, but I'd buy more gold.  This ratio is 'bearish' for Bitcoin very much because of the futility and destructive potential of trying to make it scale via stone-ax methods and the traction that idea seems to have here in Tardville.

I would add that I could see making gob-smacks of money in the (likely) eventuality that Google-class operators decide to adopt it and make it into Paypal-II (rather than just kill it off.)  That certainly could happen and the world is full of idiots so it just might fly pretty high.  They supporting it is probably the best bet to keep more dangerous related technologies from getting a foot-hold.  That doesn't make me 'bullish' really though I won't turn down the offer to capitalize handsomely should the opportunity present itself.

You are a master at decorating a plot with arbitrary fluff as though it means something.  I still LOL at the color one you did and how you 'updated' it.  It still blows my mind that there were so many mouth-breathers panicing because 'we are so close to the red'.

In this plot, the trends are mildly non-linear _against_ the point you are trying (probably successfully) to make.  And there was no particular block size pressure at the arbitrary point where you choose to point the arrow.

Let me propose a different read.  I currently own way more BTC than I would buy if I were taking a position at this point in time.  They are left over from when the price was lower and there is a fair amount of risk and cost in balancing so I sit tight.  If I needed a place to sink a windfall in cash, it would certainly be favorably distributed toward PM's and that is much more the case because you guys are trying to destroy Bitcoin in the way that it is valuable to me.  Unclear if you will succeed, but it's a very large risk point.  Anyway, I'll bet that there are many many other people in my situation.  We can expect the trend to continue until a balance between Bitcoin's fairly high inflation rate and the desire to hodl Bitcoin match.  Of course all manner of factors can shift the 'propensity to hodl' so it is not going to be some sort of stable point for a long long time and maybe never.

If you Bloatchainers were designing aircraft, the 747 would have 1/2 inch cable attached directly from the pilot's yoke to the elevator just like the ultralight were such a thing works quite well.  The idea of a trim-tab would never have been thought of.  Nor would the aircraft be able to be controlled.  I think that about the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT.  Classic controlled demolition.

Here's a pretty good indication of a shill, or at best someone who is disturbed and threatened by the idea of a 'free' cryoto-currency:  A person who has been around for a while and/or has paid a modicum of attention and does support Hearn's vision and projects.


When do you guys expect to use btcd as the reference implementation for XT?

For my part I often get valuable information out of various spats like this and I don't follow most of the other boards.  I don't follow the alt boards at all since I don't have an interest (financially) in any alts and not enough of an interest (intellectually) to justify they effort.  I temper my interpretation of what someone says based on my understanding of the person's affiliations and history.  I always have to be the consensus breaker I guess. 

That is actually a very attractive woman to me.  More so than almost any of the dolled-up women posted on the 'let's talk about how hot asian women are' thread.  I don't think it is her decorations one way or another as much as that she is just physically attractive.

What I have found is that no matter who looks like what, one gets used to it after a short time and simply does not notice.  I imagine that if I were living with this woman I would not even notice the face tattoos after a few weeks.

I guess I would say 'roll your own' as much as possible.  I (a straight male) personally am turned off by a noticeable amount of makeup when I see it, but that is just me.

I myself have mild rosacea.  A tiny amount of a very general antibiotic applied topically solves the problem completely.  When I ran out of my stockpile a year after I quite work I waited about 4 months for a doctor's appointment to get a prescription then to my horror I found that they wanted $300/mo for the stuff.  In subsequent research I found that most antibiotics are (or were) available as 'fish meds' ostensibly to clean fish tanks.  They are in fact the exact same pills with the exact same lot numbers as what one gets in a pharmacy.  I now make my own face cream for about $3.00/mo or 100x less than I would pay to the Rx.  I'm pretty sure it's an insider thing and probably how most doctors and pharmacists source medicine for their own use.  One $40 purchase on e-bay has gotten me enough metronidozole in powdered form to last a lifetime and the cream base is generic.  Most shelf-lives for antibotics seem to be total bullshit and many of them seem to work after 10 years of storage.  I figure I'm pretty much set for life with what I have on-hand.

If I were a female who felt a need to have at least a little bit of makeup from time to time (which I probably would) I would research the various old formularies and the ingredients they call for and make my own.  In this way I would have a higher confidence that some agenda-21 driven eugenicists and medical/industrial complex scumbags were not poisoning me and would probably save a bundle of money to boot.

If I were a woman I'd be happy if waste of time were the biggest issue here.  Here's another apropos (and amusing) vid from Melton.  Enjoy:

  ◦*˚Ultimate Super Rad Glam Makeup Tutorial!˚*◦