If you have a node that is receiving the data then you know what is fake (because you disregard it) and what is real (because you continue to relay it)
Good thing we were talking about protecting against traffic analysis by a passive third party attacker instead of a peer. It is still a valid point and something that needs to be overcome in order to prevent your identity from being discovered by an attacker. If you only solve for one problem while ignoring others you are doing nothing to protect yourself. |
|
|
|
actually, what happens if SPVproof gets added to Bitcoin Core but BTC-d ignores it?
edit: or libbitcoin or BitcoinJS for that matter?
Same with any other change to the protocol: The economic majority will decide. If an economic majority upgrades to the new Bitcoin Core version, their fork will win. If an economy majority stays with old Bitcoin Core versions or switches to btcd, then their fork will win. Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement. |
|
|
|
And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. TBF and Blockstream are the only companies paying people to develop on Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core is not the only implementation of Bitcoin. Conformal Systems did, in fact, "put up" and received little-to-no acknowledgement for doing so. (To say nothing of all the other developers who tried to do the same thing but were not able to overcome the resistance and stonewalling via which Bitcoin Core team defends their turf) "Shut up or put up" is a lie, because as soon as somebody actually does it the goal posts promptly move. |
|
|
|
If you have a node that is receiving the data then you know what is fake (because you disregard it) and what is real (because you continue to relay it)
Good thing we were talking about protecting against traffic analysis by a passive third party attacker instead of a peer. |
|
|
|
Occam's Razor: reconciliation with wife means abstinence from bct.
If this is true, I don't expect it to turn out well in the long term. Those kinds of ultimatums generally don't. |
|
|
|
how do we ChangeTip Lawsky for doing the right thing and resigning? How do we know he's doing the right thing? I would not be surprised if his next career move is into the Bitcoin space somehow. It would fit the modus operandi: 1: Create a massive problem as a bureaucrat 2: Sell your amelioration services in the private sector 3: Profit |
|
|
|
why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies? how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?
are you now unfair too?
A clue, maybe? https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhphi2Some people in the Bitcoin ecosystem push on ideas like red-listing which I think are very fundamentally anti-bitcoin, and every time that kind of stuff comes up I become ill thinking about all the political work that goes into protecting bitcoin as an autonomous trustless system. I don't have any difficulty believing there's a lot of threats, bribes, plots, counter-plots, and general skulduggery going on behind the scenes, beginning at least as early as late 2012. Why wouldn't sidechains be part of that general trend? |
|
|
|
Do you consider a competent poker player a "gambler"? If yes, I'm okay with calling the act of trading that as well: both are (risk controlled) finite resource bets on a stochastic process, based on the limited ability to predict future outcomes of that process. If, on the other hand, a competent poker player is not a gambler, while a trader is, I would like to hear what makes predictions of the 'poker' process different from predictions of the 'market' process. Or, if both of them are gamblers, but neither of them has a chance to be EV+ in your view, then I'd like to see an explanation of why a competent poker player beats an incompetent time after time, (almost) independent of the cards that have been dealt. Been there myself, lost some money in the process  Poker is not a pure game of chance in the same way that a slot machine is a pure game of chance. (I've added enough disclaimers about cheating in prior posts, so mentally insert them where appropriate) I don't know exactly what mechanism makes trading a game of pure chance, but the evidence shows that it must be. The first way we know is that because if a strategy existed which consistently resulted in EV+, then one single entity could follow it and eventually own the entire market, at which point it's no longer market. Markets continue to exist, therefore no EV+ strategy exists. The other way we know it's a game of pure chance is because when enough data is collected on the lifetime behavior of all traders, the results are consistent with playing a game of chance, with about the number of outliers one would expect given the sample size (every once in a while 20 random coin flips will come up all heads in a row). I should also clarify that I'm talking about gains relative to the overall market. When the entire market is moving up due to the addition on money from external sources, it's easy for individual traders to see patterns that look like successful strategies, but aren't in fact. Imagine 100 gamblers playing slot machines that start out at 99.5% payout, then as they continue to play the operators gradually increase the payout past 100% to 110%, then lower it back down to 100% and finally back to where it started. That's what the infusion of the Baby Boomer's 401k money did to the market, and also to the perceptions of the people involved in it. Every strategy that appeared to work from the early 1980s until the mid 2000s only did so because the market had been temporarily turned into a positive sum game by tax policy and other regulatory manipulation. It was never real or sustainable. |
|
|
|
Do you consider a competent poker player a "gambler"? If yes, I'm okay with calling the act of trading that as well: both are (risk controlled) finite resource bets on a stochastic process, based on the limited ability to predict future outcomes of that process. If, on the other hand, a competent poker player is not a gambler, while a trader is, I would like to hear what makes predictions of the 'poker' process different from predictions of the 'market' process. Or, if both of them are gamblers, but neither of them has a chance to be EV+ in your view, then I'd like to see an explanation of why a competent poker player beats an incompetent time after time, (almost) independent of the cards that have been dealt. Been there myself, lost some money in the process Poker is not a pure game of chance in the same way that a slot machine is a pure game of chance. (I've added enough disclaimers about cheating in prior posts, so mentally insert them where appropriate) I don't know exactly what mechanism makes trading a game of pure chance, but the evidence shows that it must be. The first way we know is that because if a strategy existed which consistently resulted in EV+, then one single entity could follow it and eventually own the entire market, at which point it's no longer market. Markets continue to exist, therefore no EV+ strategy exists. The other way we know it's a game of pure chance is because when enough data is collected on the lifetime behavior of all traders, the results are consistent with playing a game of chance, with about the number of outliers one would expect given the sample size (every once in a while 20 random coin flips will come up all heads in a row). |
|
|
|
You see, the U.S. govt. is very resourceful and can (for now) print just about any money it needs for any task. They can print infinite money, but they can not print infinite human resources. Open drug sale is too large a political issue for them to put up only half efforts. That's actually what makes open drug sales such a perfect strategy. Lure them into a fight they can neither resist nor win. (where have I heard that strategy before?) The reason they can't win is because the USG is operating with a goodwill account that's overdrawn. Like an overdrawn checking account, every further attempt to withdraw from the account just makes the balance more negative due to overdraft fees. Each time they act, their pool of talented individuals willing to accept their money shrinks a little bit. At the same time, more people decide to apply their talents toward thwarting them. How many more people are going to spend some time auditing or hardening Tor hidden services today that would have not done so absent this announcement? They think that they can scare people into submission, because only the types of people who'd make that kind of error would be in that job in the first place. Of course it will backfire on them. We should be thanking them for providing the incentive to produce the kinds of technology improvements that will result from their actions, to their own detriment. |
|
|
|
I'd prefer if a competent member of this community would put a bit more effort before forming convictions, on the other hand. You're making unwarranted assumptions about my background. |
|
|
|
The main problem with I2P and Tor is that they only try to protect you against mostly-passive attackers who have absolutely no idea of where you might actually be on the Internet. The Tor threat model says (and this is also true of I2P): By observing both ends, passive attackers can confirm a suspicion that Alice is talking to Bob if the timing and volume patterns of the traffic on the connection are distinct enough; active attackers can induce timing signatures on the traffic to force distinct patterns. Rather than focusing on these traffic confirmation attacks, we aim to prevent traffic analysis attacks, where the adversary uses traffic patterns to learn which points in the network he should attack. But attackers looking for the real IP of a target hidden service can significantly narrow the set of possible targets by enumerating all active Tor/I2P users (using widespread traffic analysis or by having a lot of nodes on the network), and then they can further narrow it by doing intersection attacks. Once they've narrowed it down to a few hundred possibilities, they can try timing attacks against each one to get solid proof that they're the target. (I wonder if the hidden services that were not taken down in the recent bust have anything in common. Are they in a particular country that's unfriendly to NSA demands? Do they use a fixed set of trusted entry guards? Probably we won't find out, unfortunately.) I just don't think that low-latency client<->server networks can be secure. What we need are distributed data stores like Freenet so that the originator/owner of content doesn't need to always be online and moreover has plausible deniability even if they are under active surveillance. However, I really doubt that any existing anonymous data store could actually stand up to targeted traffic analysis of the content originator. Freenet seems to be put together in an especially haphazard way, without much theoretical basis for its claimed anonymity. I like a lot of what I've read about GNUnet. I think that a good path forward for anonymous networks would be: - Make the GNUnet software user-friendly. - Create message board and Web functionality (like FProxy) on top of GNUnet. - Make GNUnet work over I2P. - Increase the popularity of GNUnet+I2P so that attackers can't just do traffic analysis of every single user. There's an solution to traffic pattern attacks - it's just really expensive. They way you solve traffic pattern analysis is to make your protocol consume a constant amount of bandwidth all the time, regardless of whether anything is actually going on or not. |
|
|
|
If you can do any of these things you already have an edge in the game. Those that have an edge win. That theory is not supported by the evidence. Study after study shows that everybody who thinks they have an edge eventually, inexorably, loses it. The edge is an illusion. |
|
|
|
I mean, in a zero-sum game where the majority is losing, somebody has to win. Every day. Obviously if you only look at a single round of a zero sum game you'll find winners and losers. The point is that nobody can remain a winner in the long term. Play enough rounds and eventually your track record will converge to the same as everybody else's. Mathematically, this must be the case. |
|
|
|
If everybody is losing, who's winning? The people who earn a cut on every trade, and the people who get out of the ponzi scheme first. Here's what happened: In 1978 the US passed a law that introduced the 401k. The effect of this law was to funnel a huge amount of money into the markets in an attempt to escape taxation. This happened right as the Baby Boomers were approaching their peak earning years. All this money being forcefully shoved into the market solely because of tax policy, instead of because there was something actually worth buying, bid up the prices of everything into the stratosphere, and all the people on Wall Street thought they were geniuses just for being there when the money spigot opened. Most slot machines have a average payout of < 100%. Imagine if you were playing on a slot machine with a 120% average payout. Play on that machine long enough and you'll eventually delude yourself into imagining you're some kind of god of probability. This was all well and good until the demographics shifted and all of a sudden there were more people wanting to pull money out of the market than were adding new money into it. Naturally, the market crashed. Now a bunch of rich, deluded, (mostly) sociopaths screamed, and cried, and stomped their feet, and threatened Congress with tanks in the street, unless they got bailouts. Now the Federal Reserve prints new money into existence for the primary dealers to pour into the market to make up for the missing Baby Boomer earnings. Thus, we all lose because of inflation (except for the sociopaths). |
|
|
|
I've been buying during this bear market, then I sodl for lower than I bought, then I bought back for even lower than I sodl, ending up where I started. This is about as good as you can hope for daytarding.
Just because you suck at something doesn't mean everyone else does. ;0 The only thing that anyone sucks at here is basic math and statistics. http://www.alphaarchitect.com/blog/2011/06/30/mission-impossible-beating-the-market-over-long-periods-of-time/http://www.moneyshow.com/articles.asp?aid=No-Nonsense-32901The number of expert stock traders who can consistently beat the market is statistically indistinguishable from zero. This result is only surprising because with the amount of blatant fraud on Wall Street you'd expect the cheaters to be able to muster more than 0.6%. Stock trading is just gambling. Apparent skill at trading is an artifact of human brains seeing patterns in randomness that don't exist. |
|
|
|
Like the dudes on wall street?
Especially them. |
|
|
|
Unless, of course, one use real buying power as a measure of value. Like in the real world.
Your "real world" is a world in which people have been punished for saving by inflation and credit expansion (actually the same thing) to the point at which actions that should be entirely familiar and widely recognized as beneficial are viewed with fear and suspicion. The fact that living below ones means and accumulating savings to be drawn upon far in the future is considered extreme and unrealistic is a sign of how much the money has been corrupted. |
|
|
|
from their ranks have come some of historys greatest men.....Marx Ludwig von Mises, Einstein, Chomsky and , well, Jackie Mason. FTFY |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
