The latest published expert testimony in the Wright court case are amazing.

Wright submitted several lists of the Bitcoin he claims to own to the court.

The first was claimed to be a strict over-estimate, submitted because wright claimed that he couldn't determine what coins were his until they were submitted by a bonded courier. This first list was generated by his employ using a list of supposed characteristics of Satoshi's mining provided by Wright  (but really plagiarized from old research by bitcoiner that linked together that may have been mined by a single large miner early in Bitcoin's life).  The code they used to generate this list had an embarrassing bug and as a result it also included a bunch of other coins matching a complicated additional pattern in addition to the pattern Wright specified. Since this list was supposed to be a conservative list, the fact that the bug added some more didn't seem to be a big deal, but it later became a smoking gun.

The other lists were provided months later and wright claimed they were generated years ago (e.g. 2011) and in delivered recently by the mysterious bonded courier.  These new lists were strict subsets of the first list: Unsurprising because he'd swore before the court that the first list was a superset-- that all the blocks he mined matched that pattern. However, the way they were subsets was extremely revealing.

In particular, these new lists included most of the coins that were only on the first list due to the bug!   One of the criteria used to generate the first list was that none of the coins had been spent, to match wright's story about his temporary lack of possession of the keys keeping him from spending them---  but they apparently looked only at the BSV blockchain to generate their lists and included some spent ones, and also some were just spent after their filings-- so as a result wright's list included coins that were spend when he swore he had no access. 

Finally, the "bonded courier" excluded enough of the first list to bring the total number of coins down to match Wright's earlier provably forged "tulip trust" documents ... but it did so mostly by leaving out coins in two big blocks of _consecutive txids_.  TXID's are sha256 hashes, so they're close to uniformly random.  The only way to get big gaps in a list of your txids is if you specifically filter out ranges by rejecting transactions.

In other words, Wright's court submitted address list which he claims is an authentic document from 2011/2012 was almost certainly generated by a process similar to:

1. In 2019, directing his employee to use a list of criteria identifying an early miner's blocks which Wright copied out of a webpage. The employee messed this task up, but their mistake makes any data derived from this list without correcting the bug extremely identifiable.

2. Taking that list removing some coins that had been spent (either on BSV or after the first list was created), but ... unable to predict coins that would be spent later, he failed to remove those.

3. With it sorted by txid, he removed two bug chunks of consecutive transactions to bring the total down to match his earlier claims.

4. Fraudulently submitting this list to the court as an authentic document written years ago when it couldn't have been because it was clearly derived from a list created by recently written buggy software.

The really fun part is that by the time Wright's employee testified before the court they knew about the bug in their initial list.  Wright's inclusion of these bug coins in the list he provided the courts much later must either be due to another instance of gross incompetence in his forgeries or because he'd already shared a bug-list-derrived-list with someone else (his lawyers or one of his victims) prior to learning about the bug.

Where is the option for "the same thing happens to Micree as happened to Jihan's former business partner Friedcat"?

If you really wanted to get back at that douchbag you could publish or otherwise share with me all your communications with him and his company.

Bitcoin's capacity has been restricted since day one: it must be or the system's decenteralization could be easily obliterated by the single largest (potentially malicious) participant bloating all other participants off the network. To the extent the Bitcoin's capacity restrictions have changed at all since the first day they have only been relaxed. Fortunately, this isn't much of an impediment for Bitcoin's use worldwide because even a modest limit can go a long way due to Bitcoin's smart contracting which enables things like payment channels.  Payment channels were envisioned since day one and the transaction format has explicit accordances for them (e.g. nlocktime and input sequence numbers).

No "cash payment function" has been removed from the protocol, in fact you can use the original software to transact (though you need to fix some bugs to keep it from crashing out).

So another lie failed, you dishonest scammer shill piece of dogshit.

I think it's entirely a question of it becoming a scandal for the university.  If it does, they'll drop him like a hot potato-- surely at this point their rules would permit it. If it doesn't, they'll sweep it under the rug-- such is the norm for institutions.

Indeed, your post is now clear. Pretty shitty. (Also still offtopic-- in the sense that what I think you want is a scammer flag for the user, not a "this particular post was crap"--)

Beyond a series of friendly and thoughtful interactions on the forum in threads over the years I don't know Lauda.  They are certainly not my pal.

I'd not heard of them shilling scamcoins (or if I had, I forgot) so I followed your links. All I found was a twisty maze of you linking to yourself. Where you did finally link to Lauda it was a post where *they* were calling dash a instamined shitcoin. Quite shockingly your description of lauda's activity there states, "This a direct lie from lauda to deliberately scam investors into buying into a project under the false premise there was no instamine!!." -- yet it's the exact opposite of what was there! If they did elsewhere, I can't find it in any of your links.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Now, I have no idea if there isn't merit somewhere behind your complaint-- as I mentioned, I only know Lauda from interactions in threads here and there where they always seemed consistently reasonable to me.  But if there is substance you've done an absolutely terrible job communicating it to anyone, particularly considering what a huge diversion your (apparent) grudge is here.  And I say this as someone that both agrees that darkcoin/dash is a scam and has been consistent about that for as long as I've known about it.

I intentionally didn't rise to your trolling previously. And I regret now that your continued attempts to derail this thread mean that I have to. Please lets not discuss it here. If there is some reason you think I should personally give a shit about the subject, hit me up in PM.

So congrats for being the most "on topic" post of all in the thread:   Right now you in this very thread you are providing a great example of low quality thread diverting posts that I wish there was some action to take against short of deleting them and/or getting you banned from the forum.
No you are unwittingly providing the example by being one and bringing your largely opaque grudge match (legit or not, I can't tell) here and wasting my time with it.

I suggested 1000 because it's the merit level needed to be legendary (ignoring the freebee legacy merits), I don't have a strong opinion on the mechanism other than it should be reserved for long tenured members in good standing.


You've read too much into the word "demerit"-- I don't mean removing merit. My thinking was more along the lines of a separate kind of negative merit that might, e.g. change the post color and/or prevent the post from bumping the thread, or otherwise clearly indicate that it's considered bullshit by one or more people whom most users consider worth listening to.

Nope, just an enthusiastic user of their satellite stream.

Og, That is the biggest most infuriating piece of dogshit I've seen all week and that's saying something because I read rbtc once or twice at some point.

It is entirely untrue. Just flat out.  It isn't consistent with anything the people you're speaking for have said, and its repetition comes from a tortured and likely malicious misunderstanding of the words involved.  (Settlement means final payment as opposed to an IOU. Settlement is not something that exists in comparison to cash, cash USD is one of the worlds most common settlement mechenisms!)

Please retract it.  If you want to make some complaint or criticism do so without putting highly objectionable words into other people's mouths.

Ignore hardly works. I have some people on ignore, I don't mean that the feature itself doesn't ignore posters/posts-- it does.

For the kind of poster where just hiding their post is enough you can just have your Mark 1.0 meat computer ignore it for you. The people you need a feature for are the ones that you can't just move your eyes past their posts--the ones who continually derail almost every thread they walk into, who take each thread as an opportunity to derail it onto their pet offtopic subject, etc.  In these cases most of the effect ignore has is handicapping your ability to push things back on topic with a quick response to the thread pulling back in that direction.

I mostly use ignore as a way to flag people as "I've already concluded this person is reliably an idiot, don't be surprised when the hidden content is stupid.", and end up reading their posts anyways.

You could perhaps imagine a situation where enough forum members coordinated to ignore a poster that ignore would actually work but even then hapless newbies would keep wandering in and getting sucked into the stupid or debating the stupid.

Another way to look at it is that right now low quality posts have only a few ways of handling them: Ignore them and hope they don't keep doing damage, try to rebuff them at depth which sometimes is a waste of time and just fuels the stupid (and also bumps the thread!),  have a mod delete them, have a mod move them off to someplace else where they're more on topic (or a cesspool that everyone sane ignores), go get the user flagged or banned... etc.   Other than the first two, these are all pretty drastic measures.

Moreover they're just not very satisfying nothing like a face stab button.


Regardless, thanks for the discussion and for listening to me vent.

You know what the ultimate organizing force is? The goddamn truth. It permeates the universe and allow parties that have never even communicated to magically "conspire" on the same facts.

Wright's victims and sponsors have poured tens of millions promoting this scam ... hundreds of millions if you believe their own claims (you probably shouldn't).

Unfunded participants from the general public speaking up and supporting the truth and opposing lies and scammers like you that transmit them is not an organized and concerted effort by comparison but it's what we have.

If there was a concerned effort wright would be locked in a cage, and maybe you would be too.  Keep it up and perhaps that's where it will end up.

I can't figure out if this is just someone that is super sadly confused or an inept attempt at malicious market manipulation.

Needless to say there is no fire here.

Files like "blk00000.dat" are not the blocks by themselves.  They are files that get filled with many blocks written as you download them.   In early software (pre 0.8 IIRC) they would grow to 2GB (maximum vfat file size) before moving to the next one.  The constant appending for a single large file created disk fragmentation and isn't very compatible with pruning, so later versions make smaller files and pre-allocate their space.

The format of bitcoin's database files has changed over time for performance and stability reasons, and so some newer versions convert older files to new versions when you upgrade. The release notes for versions note when a database rewrite is required, and upgrading to those versions usually takes a long time as it converts all the files.

The blocks themselves can never be changed once they are created, unless the software wasn't really bitcoin but was really some other network (like the BCash chains that some scammers try to pass off as "Bitcoin").  But if you had malicious software it would do whatever malicious thing it was going to do without anything being visible about block files.

0.14.0 is marked insecure because of CVE-2018-17144-- just a software bug. Nothing to be excited about there.

The reason the dates on old file on that page is because old versions didn't used to get left up at all (due to space usage reasons). Later the old versions were put online. The old files are all unchanged e.g.


[gmaxwell@bean tmp]$ wget https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.10.0/bitcoin-0.10.0.tar.gz
--2020-05-09 00:52:55--  https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.10.0/bitcoin-0.10.0.tar.gz
Resolving bitcoincore.org (bitcoincore.org)... 107.191.99.5, 198.251.83.116
Connecting to bitcoincore.org (bitcoincore.org)|107.191.99.5|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 4152163 (4.0M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: ‘bitcoin-0.10.0.tar.gz’

bitcoin-0.10.0.tar.gz                      100%[=====================================================================================>]   3.96M  3.50MB/s    in 1.1s    

2020-05-09 00:52:57 (3.50 MB/s) - ‘bitcoin-0.10.0.tar.gz’ saved [4152163/4152163]

[gmaxwell@bean tmp]$ sha256sum bitcoin-0.10.0.tar.gz
a516cf6d9f58a117607148405334b35d3178df1ba1c59229609d2bcd08d30624  bitcoin-0.10.0.tar.gz


Which matches the hashes you can find from peoples posts at the time.

When you run old versions (but new enough to know about BIP9) they will warn if blocks have different version numbers than they expect.  If you're just making transactions these warnings are completely harmless, there there so that you know not to mine with that version (you might waste your time producing an invalid block), or if you are accepting transactions you should wait for more confirmations to be confident that they're final.   The reason for this is that over time Bitcoin gains new functionality in a way that is completely backwards compatible, can't risk your existing funds, and won't stop existing wallets from working.

In short, there is nothing at all of interest here.

And if "Euro Chems" is saying otherwise, then perhaps they've been using some of their own "chems".

There are a fair number of posts on BCT where the poster is confused to the point of being infuriating or even being maliciously dishonest, trying to manipulate markets or shill altcoins, or whatever. 

The threads fill with other confused people while sensible people just shy away. For example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5223659.0

What we really need is a button that stabs someone in their motherfucking face over the internet.

But failing that, a "this is awful wtf"  button that e.g. can only be pressed by users who have recieved over (say) 1000 merit and which only shows something on the post when it's been pressed at least three times, would at least be a start.

I left there in December 2017 and haven't had any relationship with the company since then, in fact.  They just dragged their feet in announcing it.

Microguy has got to up his scamming game, because he's not fooling anyone here.

Hardly, it's a worthless zombie coin, that is listed at few exchanges (and hardly any reputable ones) and has a massive market cap boost from the large number of immobile abandoned coins.

If you're so confident in it's value, how much would you charge for 10 year BSV puts with a strike at $100?   At a price consistent with your statements I'd probably be interested in buying as many as you could reliably collateralize (e.g. with a lien on real property).  [Spoiler: like other paid scammer-shills, MicroGuy won't enter into an agreement that will bankrupt him when it turns out that the things he said were absolutely sure of don't come true.]

This post might ruffle feathers but no sense incubating a lark. I'm just going to wing it.

After years of Wright puffin up his accomplishments some hawk-eyed observer spotted that most of them were parroted! He probably thought leaving twitter was da skies enough to avoid being caged for his ill eagle activities but he should have spent more time defending his nest and stayed out of Satoshi's territory.

While some might applaud his respect for national tradition, I don't think that this albatross is anything to emu-late. His raven about Bitcoin's Turing completeness generated much mocking but those it flew over were left thinking of him as Coq-of-the-walk. *Now* even his flock will know that he's a turkey. Who did he think was that gull-ible?

Even CSU has to find this too hard to swallow. Degree printer may go Brrrrrr but Brrrr-d is a cardinal sin! Letting it stand would cheepen their reputation.

Wright's migration to the UK has no doubt made handling the ensuing flap pretty cuckoo. Although I'm sure he'll keep preening, I bet he privately r-egrets hatching this plan.

I fully expect he'll be dis-quail-ified. Once he re-terns his ducktorate will he get a booby prize or will he be left brooding over a goose egg?  Either way I don't think it will be long before his fowl play goes entirely tits up and we hear the swan song of a caw-nvicted jail bird and, at last, the end of his robin.

Coming next: A shocking revelation that Wright's "first draft" of of the "Bitcoin Whitepaper" was also plagiarized!

The Bitcoin software from satoshi syncs the current bitcoin chain (well, until it hits a bug with blocks over 500k, but if you fix that it keeps on syncing).

BSV OTOH is full of shitcoin features like the broken oscillating difficulty adjustment. Satoshi's (the real one, not your apparently drug addled maniac pretender) software rejects that stuff with a quickness.

If anyone hasn't noticed, MicroGuy started shilling this scammer super hard recently-- after himself fraudulently claiming to have been "friends" with Satoshi, and only belatedly withdrawing the claim after his account got a flaged for it. I guess what they say about birds of a feather holds, but I guess wright, with his ornithology plagiarism is the "expert" there.

Thats not really a property of 'accounts' though.  See also: scantxoutset RPC.

It will pull the history from all nodes that its connected out to mostly as fast as they'll give it, up to a 1000 block reordering window. Peers that stall the process get disconnected.  You can add a connection to a local host and it will speed things up for you-- but it won't go attempting to connect to something local on its own.

Stupid webserver died, alas. But it wouldn't have answered your questions because the relationship there is only spiritual, what they implemented was implemented a long time after that document, probably by people who only got a second hand description of it.

Here is the actual implementation:  https://github.com/Blockstream/bitcoinsatellite/blob/master/src/compressor.cpp#L212

Transactions are encoded and decoded in a fully standalone form without needing any context. That makes it impossible to replace the input txid/vout with a short identifier, though they are encoded more efficiently.  Script data is templatized and P2SH embedded segwit gets the redundant hash removed, and so on.

Things could be made smaller if there wasn't a requirement for the encoding to be context free... but context free is important for FIBRE reconstruction of blocks using the mempool. It also wouldn't be possible to use context for loose tx relay without a lot of extra complexity. E.g. if you use a counter for outpoints the peers have to be synchronized on the best block to relay (no guarantee of this in bitcoin, consider block races or just non-instant block propagation), if you use a short hash you have to deal with clowns colliding the short hash, if you use a salted short hash you'd need some indexing of utxos over that salted hash, negotiating it, etc.

I think there was some talk by the blockstream folks of making another encoding for historical blocks (so no mempool reconstruction) that used whole-block context and saved some more space.

Right now in my tests on the new signal I was getting blocks on the satellite about 2-4 seconds behind the internet, most of the time.  The performance appears to be dominated by low chunk hitrates which could be improved... I believe that with tuning they should be able to get it to 1-2 seconds consistently. Perhaps more tuning in the satellite modems could get it lower than that though the one-way delay to geosync is pretty high and a lot of the performance that the satellite modem gets comes from fairly intense error correction that adds delay.

About three weeks.  The signal is free. Blockstream also lets you pay bitcoin to send out additional data over the channel.

Yeah, if you think more I think you'll realize you're mistaken.  Anything an account system would have is there in the utxo set.  The utxo set doesn't have a history, but an account 'balance' doesn't either.  Efficiency differences from there are just a matter of having zero privacy is more efficient, so if you implement 'single account per user' -- it's more efficient too look up, but utterly murderous for privacy (sometimes literally?). Of course, UTXO looking up via an untrusted host isn't so efficient without a commitment to a utxo set, but that's not an account vs not account question.