Right, okay, but folks, the actual state of quantum computers is sort of a side issue to my main topic here.  I'm interested in how the plan would go for changing bitcoin's signature algorithm should such a quantum computer be engineered which makes ECC insecure.  The D-WAVE definitely isn't that computer.  Speculations as to how far off such a computer is/may be aren't too far afield, but getting into the specifics of the D-WAVE isn't what I'm after for this thread.

Looking forward to what LaudaM might offer.  I guess I more or less have the same understanding as what you expressed, Shorena.

I guess my question was mainly aimed at that "hard fork" you were talking about.  It seems like it woulnd't be enough to merely switch to a new signature algorithm, because what about all the old UTXOs that are only secured with the broken signatures (and whose pubkeys have been revealed)?  Wouldn't there have to be some desperate action to keep all of those vunerable UTXOs from being spent by an attacker?

Anyway, I'm not too worried about this scenario, I'm just curious to here from people with a better understanding than me exactly what the ramifications might be for changing sig algos.

I downloaded https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz and I find you in there just like Shorena, using grep:


The trust.txt.xz without a timestamp in the filename has a file datestamp of 11 Sep.


The one you refer to seems to have the date 16 May in the filename so I think it's an old one.

Still needs some help, but here's a first image (generated with just a single command using the script above, somewhat modified):




Clearly it's kinda a total mess so you'd need to tweak the parameters to graphviz, nonetheless, I thought the script to download and draw was worth posting.  This version of "showtrust.sh" works at least for that (and while twopi clearly didn't do a great job laying out the text here, it did draw in under a minute using my low-powered, 3 year old laptop.

Interesting to me how he goes from making thinly veiled threats to trying to play the victim as people question his motivations.

Here's a start, this script downloads and upacks the source, removes the exclusion nodes (for now), encapsulates the node list in a simple digraph format that should be drawable by graphviz, and calls circo on it. 





Name the first codeblock whatever you want and make it executable, name the second codeblock 'trust.sed' and put it in the same dir as the first codeblock.  Execute.  (assumes you have wget, unxz, and graphiviz installed and on your $PATH).

The problem for me is that I use terrible, low-end hardware, the graphviz executable "circo" is still running after 10 minutes.  I don't know how long it will take so who knows, maybe there are issues.   I can post again if this works or doesn't work but I just thought I'd reply to ecua about automatically downloading and drawing---it's a start.

---

EDIT: circo is slow for large graphs!  I changed the executable to twopi, but still playing around with it.

I think you're right that the criterion for evil points is whether or not the IP was used for abuse, but it's not that hard to check whether a node is a TOR exit node, the TOR project tells you how to do it here: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorDNSExitList

We've seen this before from QS,  something about valuing relationships in currency seems to be a kind of foundation of his philosophy. Remember, dooglus, when he wrote that paragraph about exactly how much btc I should or shouldn't be trusted with?  Again and again in this thread he seems to fail to understand that everyone comes with biases, that his own opinion of what is just is inherently skewed in his own favor (as everyone's),  and that the point of a neutral party isn't only how much money you trust them with, but whether they're actually neutral.

QS, can you actually look at dooglus' five lines and say where you disagree or where you think it's not relevant or important?   It's simple and succinctly captures one side of the debate so if you could address it I honestly think it might help to elucidate the competing philosophies here.

Okay, here's an equally serious offer:

Are you willing to put 5BTC into escrow and to leave this forum forever if I will prove that you are an unrepentant arsehole?

If there's really no basis to my claim then you would have no reason to hestitate to accept my offer.  

---

@erikalui: It's not extortion though, it's just nonsense.  Extortion is usually where someone demands payment in order to not reveal something damaging.  In this case:

(1) QS isn't threating to reveal unless I pay, he's asking for me to pay for him to reveal something which I suppose he thinks is damaging to me; this why I keep emphasizing the craziness here.  If he did have something damaging on me, why I would pay for him to reveal it?  It's a ludicrous proposition so we probably don't need to give it any more of our attention.

(2) It isn't clear at all what he's even talking about.  "Collusion" is wrong in, say, a poker game, where people if two or more people at the table are working as a team without the rest of the game knowing, they gain an unfair advantage.  Or, as Blazedout419 was talking about, in an escrow situation where, again, the assumption is that al the parties are mutually self-interested and not having an interest in each other's outcome.  But in general in life, "collusion" is simply called "collaboration" and there's not anything wrong with two people working together on a shared goal.  In any case, I already said how I knew that Panthers52 was QS, it wasn't hard to realize if you've been harrassed by him for as long as I have.  He has a certain je ne sais quois which is a kinda like a big blinking lighthouse, once you've had the "opportunity" to experience it as often as I have.

I think that's all I'm gonna say about QS' "offer".  I don't imagine anyone is going to pay him 5BTC to "reveal his proof", so we may as well either let this thread die, it seems that everything which needed to be said about QS' self-escrow scheme has been said, or else turn back to that topic if there's really something more to talk about which is actually on-topic.

Ha, indeed.  I guess it's actually a pretty interesting side-effect that could happen.  Imagine if all of a sudden everyone cranks up a full node and then suddently the bitcoin network has a lot more bandwith.  I guess as long as block sizes are limited you'll still have an issue getting the confirmatinos, but at least the network will be more robust!

Wow, clever.

I actually didn't realized that.  I haven't looked into the details of the "stress tests".  But what do you mean when you say "giving away the private keys"?

Yes, I am aware of it in principle, of course in practices it depends on how important it is to get a quick confirmation balanced against the trouble of resetting your wallet.  In my case, it was sent from a mobile phone wallet so I would have probably had to export the private keys and manually made the transaction and sign it and push it and it turned out I was okay just to wait as the other party could see the transaction and that it would be confirmed eventually.

It's because it's trolling nonsense.  It's patentely ridiculous.  No one is going pay QS to "post proof" that I "colluded" to find his alt.  Why would they?  We already know that it's his alt.  What's the relevance?  Qs is currently doing his best to turn a thread about how he escrowed for himself into something else.  So far in this thread he's hemmed and hawed for 15 pages, then faked a ban, then flipped out and started calling people idiots, then tried to apologize to some of those people, then accused TC and Badbear, then said sorry to badbear, then said he was going to leave the community (that didn't last long), and today he's back slinging nonsense at redsn0w and trying to "offer" for us to pay him some 1200USD in order to go on further about his own superiority.  Let's not take the deal guys!

There's this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12345881#msg12345881

I don't know what you mean by "colluding" here.  Have I talked with others about your negative behaviors towards me, sure.  Did I get any "tip" that you were panthers52, nope?  You showed your own hand on that.

Cool.  So, maybe you'll agree it's best to leave your baseless speculation out of it.

Um, yes.  But do you know the real reason why I decline your "request"?  It's because it's far too cheap.  You proving your "allegations" is clearly worth hundreds of BTC, but I just can't afford to pay for it.  If you decide to do it for free, then sweet!

---

@Jonald, you should request for him to pay you 5BTC if he's bluffing.  If he fails to take you up on your request, you must be wrong.

They threatened it for early september.  I appreciate the warning.  I got caught with my pants down during a few of their "stress tests" this summer when I wasn't paying attention to fees.  One time a transaction took almost 3 days. 

You'll have to be more serious in stating what your accusations are if you want me to confirm or deny them.  I don't think that  allegations like "I have a vastly superior intellect" are really provable.  And anyway, are you putting up 5BTC on this bet?

Or is this just like more of the mockery you were pulling here, where you were "offering" to pay someone to convince you of something you clearly can't be convinced of.


^^^This kind of stuff is clearly trolling.  As is the idea that I'm going to give you 5BTC in order for "prove your allegations".  If you have allegations to prove, why not just prove them?   Your chest-banging and bluster is getting cheaper and cheaper.

BTW, I'm done with the flame war here, I hope you all will pardon me as this dude does get my dander up a bit.  I'm moving on now.

Cheers!

I saw this in Slashdot yesterday:


http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/09/09/1938206/cryptographers-brace-for-quantum-revolution

Then I looked a bit at the wikipedia page on elliptic curve cryptography and it seems that ECC is especially vuneralble to quantum attacks compared to RSA crypto of equivalent key lengths.  From what I understand, the main advanage to date of ECC over RSA is that you can get equivalent security for shorter key-lengths.  A 256bit ECC key is supposed to provide security on the order of like a 1028bit RSA key. However, apparantely quantum computers nullify this advanage.

Does this have ramifications for bitcoin?  In a worst-case scenario in which our fundamental crypto is broken, would bitcoin be able to upgrade the protocol to use a different crypto system?  How would the UTXO set be secured?

Thanks in advance for educating me you guys.

You're right that QS' behavior towards me for the last 6 months has certainly earned him a special place in my heart.  And I was sorta trying to emphasize that by pointing out that if he hadn't been harrassing me with all of his sockpuppet accounts, I certainly wouldn't have ever run across his self-escrow scheme.

With respect to scams, it seems to me that taking an escrow fee while leaving the other party out of the loop is the definition of taking money for a service and not providing that service.  QS has said several times in this thread that if his victim/trading-party was unaware of the fact, then there's no harm done and no foul.  He references something he calls "efficient markets" and says that the only thing a rational person cares about is how much money leaves or enters his wallet.  I think those statements together betray a sort of dangerous sollipcism.  he stil doesn't seem to understand that for a person who hired him as escrow, that person was expecting that both parties send to an escrow, not to have to send first.  That person paid money to him to mitigate risk and he pocketed that money without providing the risk abatement insurance that a third party could provide.  Even now as he writes about this he states that "he is always fair", "he is never wrong because he's so careful".  These statments seem to betray the fact that he can't realize that fairness is also a matter of prespective.  That it's impossible to be objective as humans, that his perspective comes with his own bias (as do each of our perspectives).  I leave people to judge for themselves what his statements, his actions with sockpupets, not to mention his trust ratings betray about his ability to act with impartiality or neutrality.  I think it's good that this stuff has seen the light of day.

That said, yes, I'm probably overreacting


I mainly agree with you, but I think that (1) QS did steal money in this case, whereas there's no evidence to suggest that TC has done so; (2) the ability to decide when you've done harm is biased, and no one should be allowed to be both arbiter and party to the argument.  People who think they can do so either haven't really thought it out, or they're nuts.

---

I don't know what you're talking about here, man.  I think the paranoia is perhaps overtaking you.   Lol, now that I think about it, who would have tipped me anyway?  Did you tell someone that Panther52 was your alt?  I don't think you realize something about yourself man:

1) you have a distinctive way with words (cf. the quantification of this in the OP)
2) your persecution of me was outlandish and over-the-top

Put these toegether and it's really not that hard to see what's going on when an account I've otherwise had no contact with starts PMing me about havesting my transaction details and bitcoin addresses with vague motivations like 'maybe I can help'.  Or when that guy starts leaving me ranting PMs saying that I'm nothing but an off-topic posting scammer, but he can get me some deals on a lealanna coin.  Comeon man, you have to try to step outside of yourself once in a while to see how others perceive you.  And when that guys shows up in the thread accusing quickseller of trust abuse and starts ranting about the same exact things that Quickseller has been doing to try to distract from the matter at hand, it was really more than obvious to anyone who was looking.  As I said to you then, are you sure you want to keep pulling more and more alts into this?  I mentioned at the time that I was surprised you were going to end up outing an alt you were doing escrows for.

FTFY.

Were you in my room living on my computer?  Here you go again proclaiming "facts" you have no pertenence to.

You're right.  The reason is that you fessed up.  Why do more experiments to verify the already verified?

Lol, I love it.  I'm clearly too stoopid to do anything clever, ever.  You're probably right.  If you decide to use that superior intellect of yours to build you own language models for youself, the instructions are in the OP.  PM me if you need help.