The idea is to reverse the flow of time.
If we can prove that both cores computing in reverse reach the same state (ie arbitrary split network can be reversibly unified) we proved that there exists blocks that can split network.

Let's hunt for consensus bugs using this method!

We start with a network of two split Bitcoin Core nodes (two different versions) and a three miners (so that no one has 51% when chainspilt is trivial).

GOAL: calculate in reverse what happens until we reach some unified network block (a block in set "a" in picrure below)


X     Y
\      /
 b   c
  \ /
   |
   a
   |
 


The miner schedule is generated, each miner takes 30min on average. it is a sequence of timestamps when blocks were "mined". The segment b cointains only blocks (actually timestamps) from miner #1, the segment c contains only timestamps from miner no. #2 and miner #3 blocks. The segment "a" contains blocks (timestamps) from all three miners.

To every copy of block, a boolean attribute is also added whether the block is other node relayed or miner relayed.

Next lets focus on the oldest block (chaintip) which must be unvalidated and unmined.
If it's miner relayed, it is unvalidated and sent back to miner. Miner serves as a sink and saves blocks it recieves to disk.
If it's node relayed it is either on one node, or on both nodes.
If it's on one node the other node must have rejected it. This rejection is simulated in reverse, meaning the node who does not have it internally simulates the reason for rejection, then sends it to node who has it. The node who has it then unvalidates it and sends it to miner for storage.

If it's node relayed and on both nodes the unvalidation by late node, sending to early node, receiving (unsending) by early node, unvalidating by early node, and sending to miner is performed.

Blocks are also popped from blockchains.

Actually node X is the minority node so it is rejecting all blocks from set c.

It is thought that a consensus on who receives coin can be reached via a numerical method. The mechanism is completely zero knowledge - no knowledge to who sends coin to who is revealed.

A large set of candidate creditors is collected into a merkle tree by a miner (collect)

Creditors and debitors pubkeys are shuffled by a miner into two sets (partition).

Creditors vote bit by bit on in which partition their debitors are, and debitors vote bit by bit where the creditors are (vote).

Miners solve the system of linear equations, to determine the set of  which creditors just received a coin (matrix).

If a solution is found (the set of creditors is solved) creditors are credited coins and all debitors are debited a coin (goto collect).

Otherwise the next shuffling - voting - solving round occurs (goto partition)

As you can see there is no relationship who send coin to whom, it's like a full coinjoin (like mimblewimble).

Another advantage all public keys own exactly 0 or 1 coins, so there is anonymity for amounts.

But it's far from completion.

[Here is how 2x chain can be effectively destroyed]

Here is how 2x chain can be effectively destroyed 

As an user, do the following

1. Wait until the fork block is mined
2. Two way split all your coins.
3. Send all your S2X shitcoin to miner who recently mined a Bitcoin (not S2x!) block

As a miner do the following

1. Mine on the Bitcoin 1MB chain to get superior profits
2. When nuke transactions become censored on S2x chain:
3. Hop to S2x chain, mine a block full of nuke transactions, hop back to 1MB chain

Resulting mining rewards:

Bitcoin miner rewards: 25BTC + over 9000 shitcoin
S2X miner rewards: 0 BTC + 25 shitcoin

tocode released the Satohash function

https://github.com/movedon2otherthings/satohash

The function takes 256bit input (for example a password) and returns a 256bit output (for example a bitcoin private key)

This function can be used as a key derivation function. You only remember the password to your funds.

Another purpose the function can be used for hashing, like when combined with sha256 or any other function like this satohash(sha256(input file))

Code:

$ sha256sum hash.h | ./run
d590e41a6cb9ea0b1952565d29c40d3e09fe3c0d07acf42c089b9c009775d71d

The function also can be mined to create proof of work like bitcoin. But must be again chained with arbitrary input hash function like sha256

There is also a command line code that hashes stdin or the first argument

Examples:

empty input (all zeros)

Code:

$ ./run 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
fe077f0af592477a82d8eb871615add4a53a489402dd9b5a09c4565c66db0814

$ echo -n "" | ./run
fe077f0af592477a82d8eb871615add4a53a489402dd9b5a09c4565c66db0814
$ ./run ""
fe077f0af592477a82d8eb871615add4a53a489402dd9b5a09c4565c66db0814

hello world

Code:

$ ./run satohash
db63fef9f4805eac731877f36f653635865b0a2700aae8cf6af40cb12801ada2

Demonstrate the avalanche effect, changing one letter changes whole output

Code:

$ ./run Satohash
2b4f3c56fd7f93d8d2730cc79f6e0f492dcff1e4784cef58f4a1b24554b11b06

I wish you happy holding of Bitcoin in your head, happy mining and fun. Thanks.

Looking for account in the 0.005 range

PM & post here

I'm designing special scannable address format. See:
http://scanaddress.ucoz.com.global.prod.fastly.net/index.html

Do you like this idea? To help please photograph the code with all your phones

You can also print it and photograph the paper

Many photos are welcome!



different angles are great

shit cameras especially welcome

100 million $ out

To the shill monitoring site   , we just added an epic new feature, language processing.    
Our machinery can analyze online posts with high precision.
No matter what type of shill (government, bank, corporate) .
No matter what topic (fear, scare ,bitcoin dead, promotion, social media, convince, community engagement.), etc..

How analyzed shill post looks like?

...

As u can see we can detect the most important stuff like verbs and nouns. This will allow us to categorize posts by topics, agenda etc..

There's a system called Continuous Linked Settlement, operated by the Continuous Linked Settlement Bank under (I think) the Bank of International Settlements. This is essentially a central bank for central banks, where the worlds top 50 or banks including central banks, maintain balances in the worlds top 10 currencies for international settlements. This is how the majority of international FX trades are settled. The rest are settled bilaterally through direct vostro and nostro accounts (latin for yours and mine) between correspondent and respondent banks. The cost and complexity isn't actually related to the underlying medium of exchange (fiat balances kept in core banking systems), transfer of value (payment systems) or the network (SWIFT) but in the integration across all the channel, product, trading, treasury, risk, processing, compliance, fraud, reporting etc systems within a bank and out to customers. Also banks generally have entirely separate systems in each country, and each country generally has a regime of compliance completely different to each other. Reducing complexity, cost, risk and increasing standardisation and automation is the key yes: but this is a massive job and not as straight forward as just adding a cryptocurrency based settlement layer. Payment services need to reduce friction not increase it, so you need to provide a better service than paypal, not a much worse system, in order to compete. Finally, as an architect of core banking and payment systems for many years I can tell you first hand that commercial and central banking systems are vastly superior in cost and speed to any massively distributed consensus based public cryptocurrency system that can ever be.

Set up a facility to archive and monitor the Epic Big Block Drama

Thinking of features to add, all ideas are welcome

...

Thanks to censorship, a 100% consensus has been reached in order to activate an effective block size decrease to 0.5MB on 1.4.2016

This highly anticipated fee event will boost miner revenues and serve as a bold warning to the illuminati behind the stress test.

After a successfull activation, the censorship on all social media will be lifted. This will cause a new consensus to be reached, for an urgent block size increase.

The subsequent massive block size increase will allow us to raise block size by 200%. This means, that the block cap will grow from 0.5 MB to 1 MB.

We expect that this massive increase will have a huge effect on the public image of Bitcoin, on the social media and will trigger a new major wave of adoption.

I ask if it's safe to download untrusted blocks and chainstate from the internet and paste it to a pruning Bitcoin Core as a quick-start method?

Does Core validate the UTXO?

Edit: Is the chain cross platform?

We're developing a new startup. We want to monitor activity of shills who're trying to crash the Bitcoin project.

This has the huge potential to save Bitcoin - believers' time because they don't have to waste time reading the same
copy pasted arguments and FUD over and over.

Responding to the sockpuppets is a waste of time, they shill full-time taking shifts in the cubicle and their asses are covered by mods and upvote/downvote robots.

We want to measure using a scientific method the intensity of shills and collect proofs of various events of interest (sockpuppets, downvote robots, censorship on "uncensored" boards)

If we discover what boards are "taken over" we save time by notifying everyone of this, quit visiting, and turn the boards into the echo chamber and circlejerk it is.

Here is a proof of concept home page:

I think that Satoshi did the right thing.

I think that Bitcoiners do not see how serious the situation is.

The recent Ethereum pump worries Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi is considering moving all his funds to Ethereum.
This is why we at the Bitcoin headquarters need to deploy the 1.337 MB upgrade immediately.

But before we do that, we need to do a slight bump to 1.31337 MB to test how the quadratic slow transaction.
If everything goes correctly and only some nodes crash, we can crash the remaining nodes with the full upgrade.

Major pools like the solo miners who don't mine at pool expressed full support. The central bankers agree as well.

Please sign this document with your full name and address so we can blackmail you if you decide to disagree with this proposal.

Thank you.

It's now clear to me that they have read the article "Who Controls Bitcoin?" we released a year ago.

Only thing they did swap  Bitcoin New vs Core and Bitcoin Classic

We are truly playing them like the fiddle now What I expect we are going to fund another
highly trusted article this time by some Lawyer Governor or whatever and they are done

Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan, BTC456, BitFury, BW.COM, BitClub Network Asia.

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-38405-1-1.html

yes, this is a joke

Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html

but take long to propagate 

I Believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.