jbreher is hell-bent on destroying a productive (not to mention innovative) system
Well, no. Destroying a productive system (assuming you are referring to Bitcoin) would be directly against my financial interests. Accordingly, I am working towards its success. |
|
|
|
You _are_ aware that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is being sold as a solution to the block congestion problem, right?
How can I be aware? I've actually never heard the phrase "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset" before your post, and a Google search for that phrase doesn't turn up much either. You say it's "more stuff" than SegWit, but what exactly is it? Who's selling it? Is anyone buying it? You need to define your terms. All the features bundled together as part of the impending SegWit release. |
|
|
|
So what? SegWit only makes linear verification time possible, it doesn't necessarily implement it.
I realize that SegWit -- in and of itself -- does not do anything about the quadratic verification time. That is but one reason I refer to it as The SegWit Omnibus Changeset - there is considerably more *stuff* in it than SegWit. Indeed, my impression is that SegWit itself has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the alleviation of quadratic verification time. And the reason there's no rush to implement it is because scaling is not the purpose of SegWit! How many times do we have to explain that before people get it?
Well, you might be saying that, but the message that is coming through loud and clear is 'we don't need a simple increase in maxblocksize because SegWit!' Well, that and 'The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is superior to other solutions from a scaling perspective because other solutions merely limit quadratic hashing time, rather than fixing it!' It seems like people have the expectation that when SegWit is "implemented" (a word which seemingly nobody can agree on a definition) blocks will stop "being full" and transaction fees will drop to almost nothing so they can buy their coffee on the blockchain. These people then get inexplicably angry every time someone tries to tell them that this is not actually the case.
Maybe if the company line wasn't always changing, we'd latch onto it. But whatevs... You _are_ aware that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is being sold as a solution to the block congestion problem, right? |
|
|
|
Like the title says. The current iteration of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset does not fix the O(n^2) hashing problem. At least according to Peter Todd: We haven’t actually fixed the O(n²) signature hashing problem yet, although we’re fairly confident that we can, and there’s a open pull-req implementing the cache that we need. - https://petertodd.org/2016/segwit-consensus-critical-code-reviewNot necessarily an insurmountable problem. And I suppose PT might be... err... uninformed. However, it certainly puts some specious claims (e.g., April; e.g. safe scaling) into perspective. One wonders what other major claimed features of The Omnibus SegWit Changeset remain technical pauperism. Might be worth a discussion, donchathink? |
|
|
|
search "gavin matonis wright block 9" to see lots of people discussing how wright showed them a signature that is validated by the address held in block 9
No. How 'bout you post a link to either Andresen or Matonis state that the evidence they were presented with by Wright may have been the same as the spoof. Unless you can, then I believe I am fully caught up with the situation. Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1.
That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum.
I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement).
I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post.
Was that supposed to be a reply to my inquiry? Because it is not. |
|
|
|
search "gavin matonis wright block 9" to see lots of people discussing how wright showed them a signature that is validated by the address held in block 9
No. How 'bout you post a link to either Andresen or Matonis state that the evidence they were presented with by Wright may have been the same as the spoof. Unless you can, then I believe I am fully caught up with the situation. |
|
|
|
So, why could he not access the address and send the bitcoin dust back to gavin as he said he would from Satoshi's account?
While we know that he _did_not_, we do not know whether he _could_not_. Though admittedly that would be a plausible conclusion. Don't you think a more like scenario is that Craig is in SERIOUS legal jeopardy for what appears to be a tax scam and wanted to be "outed" as satohsi so he could justify his right to patent and then sell all the patents to that company to get a lot of money fast (and save his bacon)?
I don't think enough facts are in evidence to call that scenario more likely. There is insufficient data to quantify probabilities. Again, I'll grant you plausible. |
|
|
|
have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.
Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK. ill just leave this here MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4B wait.. i must be satoshi too Show me where either Andresen or Matonis have indicated that the 'proof' they were given was the replay trickery to which you refer. Oh, you mean you can't find any such claim? Interesting. |
|
|
|
hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof. That's a bit harsh. See my sig and also e.g. Copi (yeah, Wikipedia  ) Not harsh at all. And fully consistent with your sig (I don't know what Copi is). Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. Period. You can call it evidence supporting a _conclusion_ of Not-A. I'd even agree with you. But it ain't proof. |
|
|
|
have you not seen the many blogs reddits and forum posts showing the "details" craig displayed as proof to people like gavin and other prominent bitcoiners was simply a 7 year old piece of data anyone can copy and paste out of the blockchain.
Neither have you. The specifics of the 'proof' demonstrated to Andresen and Matonis have not been shared with the public, AFAIK. |
|
|
|
hes a fraud, his lack of proof is proof of that.
Well, no. You are displaying an elementary logic fail. Lack of proof for A is never proof of Not-A. You could call it evidence supporting Not-A, but it is in no way proof. |
|
|
|
Lol!!
What a moron.
Thanks for reasons number 2001-2051 that nobody will believe this guy is Satoshi.
In what way does filing Bitcoin-related patents provide reasons that CSW is not Satoshi? There may be a moron in this post, but it does not seem to be CSW. |
|
|
|
This is 0 evidence.
Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.
True, there is no conclusive evidence. For any of the above. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates. However, it could be plausible to claim that Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more plausible candidates. I'd lol if future evidence shows CSW to be Satoshi. I'd lol also if it turned out that CSW was the exploiter of the DAO's recursive withdrawal. <- wild speculation, apropos of nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm. You may have had more activity if you entitled your post "Evidence of Wright maybe being Satoshi" or some such.
<I found it a compelling read...>
|
|
|
|
Obviously "someone" doesn't want the price of bitcoin to soar and is willing to sacrifice fair amount of money to try to stop it from happening.
Maybe.... or maybe each new local maxima teases out another burst of profit taking? |
|
|
|
Given up trying to pretend that the stalking-forks perform any role other than (insignificant) minority retrograde Core nodes, jbreher? Typical behaviour; you start one argument (XT), and when that argument turns out to be bullshit, you simply start another (Classic). No point flogging a dead horse, eh?
WTF are you on about, Carlton? I've consistently been a BU sort of a guy - at least since its inception. What have you switched to now that BU has suffered it's demise? Oh, you still are? Maybe you could fix your grammar, or does all language above the level of elementary education constitute "word salad" to you? Still running BU. Thanks for asking. Ain't nuttin' rong with my grammer - at leest not abuv. Lern to Engrish. |
|
|
|
brb, need to go spend at least an hour LMAO at rbtc's ETH huffing Gavinistas!
WTF are you shilling about? I don't recall Gavin ever publicly recommending to buy into the DAO. BitcoinUserNotAffectedMeme.png You are correct, Gavin actually is very skeptical, but there are many "Gavinistas" addicted to mETH and you can see the pump on Vers forum and /btc Appears many more Classic/BU/XT supporters are also invested in mETH and there are plenty of reasons why. Not saying you're _wrong_, 'cause I don't know. But... where are you getting your data? It is indeed anecdotal Duly noted. |
|
|
|
Given up trying to pretend that the stalking-forks perform any role other than (insignificant) minority retrograde Core nodes, jbreher? Typical behaviour; you start one argument (XT), and when that argument turns out to be bullshit, you simply start another (Classic). No point flogging a dead horse, eh?
WTF are you on about, Carlton? I've consistently been a BU sort of a guy - at least since its inception. Speaking of which , WTF is a 'minority retrograde Core node role'? This sound like anything but word salad to anyone other than Carlton? |
|
|
|
brb, need to go spend at least an hour LMAO at rbtc's ETH huffing Gavinistas!
WTF are you shilling about? I don't recall Gavin ever publicly recommending to buy into the DAO. BitcoinUserNotAffectedMeme.png You are correct, Gavin actually is very skeptical, but there are many "Gavinistas" addicted to mETH and you can see the pump on Vers forum and /btc Appears many more Classic/BU/XT supporters are also invested in mETH and there are plenty of reasons why. Not saying you're _wrong_, 'cause I don't know. But... where are you getting your data? |
|
|
|
No its because the DAO was hacked executed as per contract
FTFY. Recall that it was explicitly stated that despite the verbiage in the prospectus, the actual code was the governing embodiment of the contract. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
