 Thoughts? Wow |
|
|
|
Let's hope not, if it is hacked it will probably have a huge impact in crypto market(not a good one).
But i agree with @slowdeath, "our team is investigating" doesn't sound good.
their is 100 past n present scammers collaboraing together as much as i dislike inflation and money printing i cant wait till the Banks band together to kick their ass once and for all  Yep - there is clearly a concerted effort underway to spew disinformation about Coinbase due to their decision to add ETH. This effort started days ago here and on reddit. I'd venture to guess it is being propagated by many of the same folks that attacked XT and Classic. I suspect its also linked to recent reports about problems with SPV clients, DDoS, etc. Some core devs recently spread what looked like disinformation about SPV wallets to a random user on one of the IRC channels. There's a desperate attempt maintain control of development process right now. Do your homework, ask questions, be aware that everyone has an agenda. |
|
|
|
Smooth
What the hell did you guys do to Anonymint? I haven't heard from him since the Monero/Aurocoin wars of early 2014 and all of a sudden I get an email manifesto from him that could have been written by Ted Kaczynski aka Unabomber himself expressing an undying love for Smooth accompanied by 11 pages of mathematical proof for an exploit to the anonymity of several block chains. Seems he would like me to avenge the attack on his honor since his current bout with poverty and frail mental health prevent him from doing so himself.
Early 2014 is when Satoshi was hacked, fwiw (I know some have speculated about a Satoshi connection). Just for giggles: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1474403.msg14881854#msg14881854. |
|
|
|
...
The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.
So you propose a security without an issuer? In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return. Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto). It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make. In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread). Yes, but even the the above example "the scheme" rather than Monero itself would be the security. There is a subtle difference here. A good example is Ethereum. Many would argue that Ethereum is a security because of its initial ICO, but in reality was the security the promise to deliver the Ethereum at a future date or the Ethereum itself? Another example would be a promise to deliver gold at a future date, The promise to deliver gold at a future date may very well be a security, but that does not make the gold itself a security. I think I agree with that. Not sure the relevance to this thread, but then I saw no relevance to Monero having been brought up at all, except to try to attack us with the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. "Issuer," "security," etc. are all legal terms defined by statute and which have been interpreted by courts. The Howey test is one case about one particular type of investment contract (one involving real property) and whether it constituted a "security" under the Securities Act (U.S. Jurisdiction). The court looked to investor expectations to help determine that the contracts in question were securities. Whether the securities needed an "issuer" was never in discussion - obviously they do, they don't come from nowhere and they are creatures of contract, which require people or other entity with a legal existence (like a corporation, partnership, llc, etc). Question: what jurisdiction is being discussed/contemplated? Why not start with some definitions from the relevant statutes from the relevant jurisdictions instead of making stuff up? How will long-arm statutes be avoided? OP has said nothing in 10+ pages, Caveat emptor. |
|
|
|
I actually and truly believe that HONCHO is Satoshi Nakamoto. This is not a joke.
~CfA~
Who we were at the beginning will not confirm nor deny that speculation. The rabbit hole suspends in animation for the aforementioned 10 BTC escrowed bet. Certain parties want to destroy my work. They will not succeed. Hi, Craig and JVP. |
|
|
|
popcorn!
Need SOME excitement, anyway, with these low volumes. Forget all the overhyped DAO/ETH/LISK/MAID/WAVES "platform-as-yet-another-platform" types and their overheated markets. The most exciting development in crypto is going on right under our noses, although very few people have the skillz to appreciate it. https://github.com/moneromooo-monero/bitmonero/commits/rctNothing to do w/ Juggalos I hope . . . . |
|
|
|
I think that is one of the finest representations of cryptocurrency development, ever.
I also speculate bananas... and a whole helluva lot of them. Somethings gotta be brewing with this new FUD campaign - this shit is off the charts. Well, I guess school is out for summer... so, idle hands and all that.
RE: "FUD campaign" It is a very obvious FUD campaign at that. Serious problems usually emerge organically and often come from a place of concern or confusion rather than judgment - unlike what's happening here. Future buyers/funders of FUD campaigns might ought to consider putting non-obviousness/discreteness/patience on their due diligence checklist when shopping around for fud-campaign staff next time. EDITED - readability. |
|
|
|
Reading up on this, I'm struck by a couple things:
1. Bitcoin core is threatening to make changes to defeat this, and any other, patents that would effectively force miners to pay the patentee in order to mine profitably.
2. Patents drive innovation, providing a means for inventors to profit from their work.
3. The ASICBoost inventors point out that if Bitcoin Core suppresses their patent, the impact will be this: Future innovators with similar technology will be motivated to go underground, developing secret partnerships with (select) miners. That way they still get paid something for their work, but only a fraction of the mining community gains the benefit.
Point #3 bears careful consideration. Let's say the ASICBoost team had realized what Core's response would be, and just secretly sold their technology to the highest bidder after quiet negotiations. That bidder would hold a major advantage, strong enough to grind down competition over time.
In the long run, this could lead to some serious centralization of the mining industry, and none of us want that.
The point being, Core acting to suppress patents does not make the inventors quit or their inventions magically disappear. It winds up endangering the decentralization of the bitcoin mining network.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea that the ASICBoost team, and similar groups, could reap huge profits off the miners. As someone noted above, the rational ASICBoost price would be just a little less than the added profit it provides compared to an equal miner that does not use ASICBoost. In other words, just under 20% of mining revenue. So ASICBoost could potentially suck up almost 20% of mining revenue. The Miners would have to pay electricity, hardware investment, personnel, rent and so on from the remaining 80%. That's a tough hit for them.
But if the alternative is them going out of business... I guess this brings forth Core's threat to defeat not just ASICBoost, but to find a way to defeat any similar enhancement. Keep in mind that Core would not only need to defeat public patents, but also any private invention that someone secretly cooks up.
If they could do that with some confidence, I think that might be the way to go. But if they can't be confident that they are forcing a level playing field on all miners, then I think they'd better lay off and let the patent holders take their profit. Because otherwise I think the threat of centralization due to some miners having a fixed advantage is just too great a risk.
Just my 2 satoshis...
Great points. This whole issue is pretty complicated IMHO. There are all kinds of possible consequences associated with changing the protocol. I think it would be good to see some kind of research paper/memo from proponents - ideally some of the core devs - researching the prospective change using a cost-benefit analysis of some kind. Specifically, What are the most probable risks associated with doing nothing (is there any empirical evidence of these types of risks materializing in other fields, what was the outcome?), how have analogous issues in other industries been handled, what are the most probable risks of forking the protocol on the basis of this or similar threats, what are the known-unknowns here (and what are some analogous unintended consequences associated with similar changes and non-changes in other fields, how well do these analogies fit here), etc.? Same type of paper from opponents would also be useful. TL;DR - A change in protocol may well be warranted. However, making the change without a concerted and transparent attempt at analyzing the problem alongside the users risks a lot of backlash and an irreparable loss of faith in the Bitcoin system. Proponents implementing the change cannot and should not let themselves appear to be above public dialogue (i.e., by ignoring genuine concerns of opponents or concerned users) or like they're making things up as they go along. Paradoxically, making the right change may be wrong if collapses the system. |
|
|
|
The AsicBoost debate is really interesting, I appreciate those folks that are taking the time to develop arguments here (whatever the position). I haven't really formulated an opinion on this issue, but this debate has jogged my memory about a patent I saw months ago while searching the Patent Office's records. I'll have to go back through some old notes to find what I think I read originally, but its something like the patent found here: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015138506A1. The title is: "A system and method for detecting intrusions through real-time processing of traffic with extensive historical perspective." A word search for "Bitcoin" will take you to this paragraph: [00027] In some embodiments, a score module may be implemented to analyze the extracted item memory, score the detections in the type- structured data, and correlate the detections with host ID data. In some embodiments, the score module can run checks on the type- structured data to determine if any thresholds have been exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module may edit or update the host ID data (e.g. in host data) with new detection information. For instance, the score module may correlate newly detected bitcoin mining activity to an existing host ID and update the host ID with further information regarding the recent bitcoin activity. In some embodiments, the score module further comprises an alert agent which can generate alert data if a network attack threshold is exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module comprises a query agent which can retrieve data from the extracted item memory in response to network security
administrators or other network security devices. In some embodiments, the score module may generate the alert data or query responses as reporting output. This means an internet provider, who probably sub-licenses routers to its customers fwiw, may be able and/or required to detect bitcoin mining and possibly node activity. This is a bigger potential threat than licensing a particular bit of ASIC tech IMHO; that's not to say the same strategy being debated RE: ASICBoost isn't applicable to mining detection. Consider what would happen if miners have to go through KYC compliance or meet some other regulation. Internet providers may be forced to act as deputies and report any detected mining or other related activity. If that is the case, home-miners could be persuaded to give up mining; miners able to continue might just decide to relocate and/or congregate in more friendly environments. I'm not intending to create a staw-person or a slippery slope argument here, I just think there may be bigger fish to fry (or to consider frying) vis-a-vis the patent scene. |
|
|
|
As much as I am convinced CW is not Satoshi I do not know this for a fact. Failing to provide the proof he claimed was coming is a huge red flag, but not really proof he isn't. [/devil's advocate]
Reasonable and correct. But that shouldn't deter all necessary trolling and ridicule of Craig and co at this point - they've earned it. |
|
|
|
yup. wait 'til you find the articles about hacking electric toothbrushes or something or other related to dentistry . . . . |
|
|
|
There are rigid coding standards in core now, no one writes code there like they would on their own. Left to my own devices, with no constraints I write code that looks like https://people.xiph.org/~greg/binomial_codec.c...but you'd never see code that looked like that in Bitcoin Core. It's quite easy to hide coding style in any case-- any senior developer has experience working in projects where they must adopt other people's preferred style. Fair and reasonable points/criticisms. To add - I think scrutinizing code, as well as code comments (think stylometrics, other text analysis), can only produce circumstantial evidence at best. Cryptographic evidence might also be circumstantial if there are no direct witnesses to the key signing that can testify (without any risk of their testimony not being believed) to identities, whether a signature was under duress, etc.; but, its certainly wildly harder to fake (couldn't even try to quantify how hard). Together, you've probably got best proof you can have and maybe a really interesting human story as well. Thanks for the feedback. |
|
|
|
Okay...At this point, I don't think that I would be able to accept a single transaction from a single early block as enough evidence because that doesn't rule out, albeit a very tiny, possibility that a private key was somehow brute forced by a couple super computers fully dedicated to the task.
I want to see a transaction from block #1 to block #9 and from block #9 back to block #1. This would at least establish that more than one private key, known to be generated by Satoshi Nakamoto, is in play. It would increase the weight of the evidence, and reduce the likelihood that the keys were somehow hacked into existence.
I like this standard of proof. It seems reasonable and raises the bar for would be bad actor-impersonators. |
|
|
|
How about Dr. Wright post some code he's written for another project so we can see how his coding style compares? I Wonder what Martti and Hearn think of all of this hoopla considering they had private correspondence with Satoshi way back when (in addition to collaborating on code)? I wonder who all got invited to opine on the veracity of Dr. Wright's claim? If Hearn and Martti were not asked to opine on the evidence, or even Theymos, why not? I believe Grigg works at R3 - surely Hearn has some info here. Perhaps Hearn is Satoshi - he did coin the phrase SPV IIRC (according to him). Back to the code comparison issue. A code comparison is something I've been working on for a bit. I'll share a little now. If you look at the original bitcoin files, you will Satoshi liked to break up his code into chunks using both whitespace and comment blocks. For many comment blocks, entire lines were filed w/ dashes to break up the code/to start and end a comment. See here (just scroll through): https://github.com/benjyz/bitcoinArchive/blob/master/nov08/main.cppI haven't seen any current developers break up their code blocks with this convention (and it is a convention, see #4 of first section here: https://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/manual/docblocks.html). Indeed, many of the original comment blocks have been removed. I have not reviewed every Satoshi-suspect's code for similar codeblock comment borders, but I have looked at a lot of them. Only one person I've found so far utilizes comment block borders like Satoshi did: https://github.com/nicksz/jTime/blob/master/tests/c.html |
|
|
|
Yeah, he wants to be left alone so much he hired a PR firm and flew Gavin to London to prove he is Satoshi, while writing long rambling blog posts that fail under scrutiny. And then promising more proof will be forthcoming. Not to mention the reports at Gizmodo, etc. that say he kept telling associates and workers and acquaintances elsewhere that he was Satoshi (or that his friend Kleiman was part of the Satoshi 'team'). He's just definitely trying to make all the media attention just go away. /s
Who said it was a PR firm? I thought Gavin just said "firm." |
|
|
|
This was a reasonable post on Dr. Wright's part, but it certainly would have made more sense yesterday. The blog post reminded of a phrase I've heard/read a few times recently RE: RE: Dr. Wright's coming out party. I have a little quibble with the phrase "cryptographic miracle" and perhaps Dr. Wright's choice in using it should be scrutinized (disclaimer: I'm not sure if he or his representatives used the phrase originally - could be media foot-in-mouth disease). In any case, it is worth noting that it is NOT a cryptographic miracle to move your own coins, BUT it would be a cryptographic miracle to move somebody else's coins w/o authorization. "cryptographic miracle" doesn't appear anywhere on that post. Correct, this might have been a month ago when this story re-surfaced, can't remember now. |
|
|
|
I believe the closest we have to Satoshi these last years, is this: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlThat particular email is not known to be hacked (but we can't say for sure that it isn't), there is no spoofing involved, and he also had to register and verify the email to the mailing list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010329.htmlhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010327.htmlhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010334.htmlThe writing style and essence of what is written does not have any troll like qualities like the spoofed "I'm not craig wright, we are all satoshi" message that appeared a few months later. The August one isn't spoofed, it is serious and consistent in writing style, while also trying to "sneak in" some comment of concern for bitcoin itself - as far as node incentives go. Kind'a like, since I broke my silence, let me also say this that is bothering me for a while. As far as I'm concerned it is legit with very high probability. Which, in turn, would imply that if I'm right then Satoshi was alive a few months ago. It would also imply that Craig Wright writing with one space, instead of two, is fraudulent, and that no writing style change has occurred for Satoshi, despite the passing of time since 2010. SN biggest mistake? Gavin Andresen!! let us watch what is coming next from mr. wright. with the logic above in mind it is not "big blocks". Unless Gavin is Satoshi/part of Satoshi. Craig could be proxy or cover for someone or something else, including Gavin, Mantonis, etc. It is clear that the evidence Gavin et al saw was totally different than what came out yesterday. The crowd took the opportunity to bash Gavin, but probably the media deserved more criticism than it got IMHO (the media should know by now its risky to take on a Satoshi reveal article - but I guess BBC didn't get the memo (why'd they choose them anyway, why not a tech journalist or personality who would understand what was happening). Perhaps the intent of yesterday was discredit the media and the traditional news cycle (and manipulators thereof) as a lesson (and assume yesterday was not about discrediting Gavin). In the alternative, perhaps w/ his tax issues, Craig needs a job and trying to demo his core dev credentials to blockstream. <--- Joke, no ill will intended twd Blockstream. |
|
|
|
This was a reasonable post on Dr. Wright's part, but it certainly would have made more sense yesterday. The blog post reminded of a phrase I've heard/read a few times recently RE: RE: Dr. Wright's coming out party. I have a little quibble with the phrase "cryptographic miracle" and perhaps Dr. Wright's choice in using it should be scrutinized (disclaimer: I'm not sure if he or his representatives used the phrase originally - could be media foot-in-mouth disease). In any case, it is worth noting that it is NOT a cryptographic miracle to move your own coins, BUT it would be a cryptographic miracle to move somebody else's coins w/o authorization. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
