Bitcoin Forum
September 28, 2020, 08:56:41 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Other / Politics & Society / Covid masks are dual-use for privacy on: September 22, 2020, 05:37:30 PM
This is something that I don’t get:  In a global panopticon where a mouse can’t sneeze without potentially being AI-robot facially-recognized via a nearby camera, why the fuck are people protesting about a sudden leap from anti-mask laws to mandatory mask laws?

It is strictly a lesser evil.  Perhaps the architects of instant global tyranny didn’t quite think this part through.  Enjoy it while you can—before TPTB suddenly realize that they are on the horns of a dilemma, and they need somehow to ban the masks that they are forcing you to wear.

For my part, regardless of Covid, I am happy to wear a surgical mask, preferably with sunglasses and a hat, when entering shops, or going down the street, or using a bank ATM, or coming anywhere within the shooting range of idiots toting terrorist weapons of mass privacy destruction cameraphones with social media apps.

Indeed, the new normal before Covid was that it was insane to step outside your home without a mask—but in many places, illegal to wear one.  Worse, wearing a mask in public tended to attract suspicions; if privacy is the goal, extra attention is undesirable.

As important as the sudden changes of laws is that wearing a mask in public is now socially acceptable.  Nobody wonders what you “have to hide”—hell, nobody even notices if you wear a medical mask that just so happens to obscure substantially your facial features.  Bonus:  Nobody looks at me funny if I wear gloves.  Thanks, Covid!

* nullius is a phantom.
2  Economy / Scam Accusations / #992662 “bingohouhou” promises “no risky” dice profit strategy on: September 20, 2020, 10:01:38 AM
Type 1 Flag #2342

A few days after creating a fake scam accusation against Prime Dice, account #992662 “bingohouhou” (distrust!) opened a thread with the following statements, among others, that constitute concrete red flags of a high risk of losing money:

exmple deposit 1000$ so profit will be 100$ with no risky and don't tell me dice is risky because i know what  is risky

risky when u betting without safe strategy and don't tell me there is no safe strategy on dice im on dice since 2014 with alotof alts accounts on primedice

It is an account created in 2017, which only just woke up with changed password and started posting a few days ago.  It is reasonable to presume that it’s some sort of a sleeper account that just changed hands.

I don’t think it’s really worthwhile to make a big case over some little scammer account that may be a throwaway.  It does need to be tagged and flagged; I am surprised how far the scam thread got without being clearly called out.  Thus, I will simply quote the post that I used as a reference for negative trust feedback:

⚠ WARNING:  This is a scam.

I am surprised that this was not called out in bright red letters on the first page.

my strategy work very well

its depend on what deposit in day

exmple deposit 1000$ so profit will be 100$ with no risky and don't tell me dice is risky because i know what  is risky

risky when u betting without safe strategy and don't tell me there is no safe strategy on dice im on dice since 2014 with alotof alts accounts on primedice

if u want contact me and test my strategy with small bankroll with doge coin like bankroll 1 doge coin i can show u how is safe

my telgram is @lokamokaa

The claimed “no risky” profit on dice is mathematically impossible.  Period.

This is just another scammer trying to trick people into contacting him, so that he can con them in private.  Don’t be a fool!

N.b. that this account just made a fake scam accusation against Prime Dice a few days before opening this topic (!).

N.b. also that this is a fake Newbie account—probably a bought account being used by another run by a serial scammer:;u=992662
Date Registered:April 29, 2017, 10:26:48 AM;u=992662
This user's password was reset recently.

This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.

OP fully quoted for reference, since I will be using this post for negative trust feedback:

hello peopel

i have good idea for dice game and for all sites dice

im on primedice since 2014 and i see alotof peopel loose big money and others win big  money

so i decided to share this idea with you guys and i hope you vote with post here about ur opinion

this idea will give newbe users take profit with pro users in dice

idea is :

site will add option feed back about pro users ( hight rollers )

so who take big feed back will got option right for copie bets

its mean newbee deposit like 100$ or 50$ and copie bets with hight roller who will bet with good strategy

so every profit take  pro user will take it also new bee and this depend on value deposite

im sure this idea will not  help sites because will cost them money if pro doing well every day with new bees deposit

im sorry for my englich but im try learning more Smiley

thanks and vote please

For reference, a full unedited quotation of the false scam accusation against Prime Dice:

hello peopel

since 2 days ago i try log in to my account on

but i forget username

so i try go back to email so also i forget password email

so i ask support to help me

they ask me  to log in with email

i tell them i forget email password so after i receive cod i can't get it from email

because i can't log in to my email because i forget password

so they don't give me my username

3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / OpenTimestamps for OpenPGP signatures: Preliminary design work on: April 28, 2020, 11:53:07 PM
Table of Contents


I want better PGP signature timestamping for Nullian Verification, git commits, investigative evidence, and even e-mail.

In the short to medium term, I intend to write code for this; but I have no spare development cycles right now.  At this point, as I develop a specification for what I want to implement, I wish to solicit feedback from persons who have an expert-level technical understanding of both OpenTimestamps and OpenPGP.

This thread will be narrowly moderated.  Please keep discussion strictly on-topic, and at a high technical level.  Although I would love to help newbies learn OpenTimestamps, the purpose of this thread is development discussion; thus, I have deliberately made this post opaque for anybody who does not have deep technical knowledge of the subject matter.  If you have non-expert questions or comments, please PM me.  At some point, I intend to open an appropriate thread in Beginners & Help; but I think that is premature, when I am seeking to write new software to cover my intended use cases.

My apologies if this post is a bit of a coredump.  At this point, I am essentially whiteboarding a large amount of information in haste.  Literary, it is not; the technical content is here.

I may soon be gone for a few days here and t here.  If so, I will catch up when I return; don’t worry, I do not intend to disappear again!

Problem Statement

My objective is to solve the following problems:

  • 0.  OTS only provides proof of past existence.  When used with digital signatures, it thus provides a limited protection against the backdating of a signature, but no evidence that a signature has not been forward-dated at the time of its actual creation.

    Although no single tool can prevent all deception, an integrated system with proof of both existence and recency would provide evidence preventing many possible deceptions hinged on the time at which a digital signature is made.  An expert in the problem domain could interpret this evidence intelligently, in case of any dispute.
  • 1.  The existing integration of OTS with git is too specific to that use case.  A generalized solution is needed, to cover other uses cases for the timestamping of PGP signatures.
  • 2.  The format of the OTS git integration is clunky and ad hoc.  The OpenPGP standard specifies a binary format designed for extensibility.  OTS data should be integrated into the OpenPGP signature itself!

General Notes

In the following, it is important to distinguish between signed and unsigned data.  In OpenPGP terms, the signed data must be included in hashed subpackets within the signature packet; and the unsigned data must be included in unhashed subpackets.  References:  RFC 4880, §§ 5.2.3 and

Some parts of my proposal could slightly more elegant, if I were to apply for new packet types from IANA.  The registration procedure is “IETF Review”, i.e. red tape; and the OpenPGP Working Group is currently embroiled in what may be reasonably described as a flamewar over the direction of RFC4880bis.  Thus instead, I plan to use § Notation Data in the “user namespace” (signature subpacket type 20 (0x14) per §

All OTS-related subpackets SHOULD NOT be marked critical (bit 7 of the subpacket type (§, unless it is desired to prevent a signature from being verified by software that does not understand my PGP-OTS subpackets.

Proof of Recency

My general proposal is to include a list of the most recent Bitcoin block hashes in hashed subpackets (thus, within the signed data).  I am currently thinking of optimal ways to pack Notation Data subpackets with the binary hash, plus alleged block height and timestamp (which are a useful record for some use cases, if not incorrectly trusted for verification).  Any verifier running a Bitcoin node could trustlessly verify that the signature’s Creation Time subpacket (§ is soon after the referenced blocks, for a somewhat handwavy definition of “soon” which may depend on the specific use case.

I hereby seek feedback on the number of block hashes which should be included.  With much handwaving, I feel like about ten blockhashes will provide adequately secure evidence for most any use case; but I do not want to base technical decisions on my own feelings and handwaving!

Question for Bitcoin experts:  Realistically, how many block hashes need to be included to cover the case of a reorg?  I have heard of a 7-block reorg, but that was a long time ago.  In case of a large-scale malicious miner attack on the network, it is not inconceivable that we may get such a long reorg again.

Validation logic in the OTS-PGP verifier MUST include appropriate logic for handling cases in which the most recent referenced block(s) are unknown to the verifier’s node, but older referenced blocks still exist in the blockchain.  Future work may include an interface for verification that blocks provided by the signer are valid orphans.  Interpreting such subtle evidence SHOULD NOT be done by n00bs; but it may be useful for interpretation by an expert witness, in case the time of a high-value signature is ever disputed in some way that this could be relevant.

Another question for Bitcoin experts:  Realistically, how many block hashes are needed to prevent a malicious party with significant mining hardware from somehow faking or manipulating the evidence?  If you can think of any practical attacks, please post them with your estimation of how much hashpower would be required, and how many block hashes need to be listed in the signed data to provide sound evidence that your attack was not used by the signer!

Question for OpenPGP experts:  Is it allowed to use multiple Notation Data subpackets with the same Notation Name in a signature?  The standard only says, “There may be more than one notation in a signature.”  If nobody here knows the answer, then I will need to examine some popular implementations to see if they would be confused, and maybe ask on the IETF OpenPGP list.

In concrete terms, for proof of recency, I tentatively plan to use multiple Notation Data hashed subpackets, —each with one blockhash and the corresponding block height and block timestamp.  The subpackets must have the “human readable” flag cleared, and a Notation Name of "" (if I can obtain permission for that—or else, a similar name at another domain).  A verifier should interpret these as an array, and sort the subpackets by alleged blockheight.

Alternatively, I may need to invent a sort of sub-subpacket which packs multiple sets of block hash data into a single Notation Data subpacket.

Including the OTS data in the PGP signature

I plan to pack OTS data into a single unhashed Notation Data subpacket with Notation Name similar to "" (or a similar name at another domain).

This way, the timestamp is carried with the PGP signature—where necessary, within OpenPGP’s own ASCII armour—without the type of kludge currently used by the OpenTimestamps git integration.  This would Just Work for git commits, e-mail, software package distribution, PGP-signed business contracts, my Nullian Verification thread, or any other use case.

Unhashed subpackets are explicitly outside the signed data, and thus can be added, removed, or modified without invalidating the signature.  Although I do not yet have experience performing such surgery on a signature, it looks trivial.

Signers SHOULD include a “complete” OTS timestamp, so that the signature contains all data necessary to verify the timestamp trustlessly—even if all of the calendar servers go bad or disappear.

Verifiers SHOULD tolerate an incomplete timestamp, to support use cases in which a signer reasonably cannot wait for blockchain confirmations before issuing the timestamp.  (However, I do not want to make this a MUST; a verifier coded for a specific use case should be allowed to demand a complete timestamp.)

Verifiers SHOULD allow graceful upgrade of a PGP signature that is initially received with an incomplete timestamp, with an interface similar to the `ots upgrade` command.

Verifiers MUST gracefully tolerate edge cases in which different timestamps may exist for the same signature.

I don’t really have any questions about this, unless anybody can see problems that I do not see.

Interpreting the results

The OTS timestamp on a signature with signed proof of recency provides strong evidence that a signature was created within a time window delimited by two Bitcoin blocks X and Y.  In practice, X and Y will probably not be sequential in most cases; but they should usually be within about 2–3 blocks of each other.

My scheme does NOT provide strong evidence of an explicit wall-clock time.  Due to the way that Bitcoin block timestamps work, it is even possible that block timestamp of X may be later than the block timestamp of Y.

Question for Bitcoin experts:  What is a reasonable heuristic for software interpreting an OpenPGP signature Creation Time subpacket relative to Bitcoin blocks?  I think that verification should immediately fail with an error if the signature’s self-alleged time is more than 7200 seconds before X, or more than 7200 seconds after Y.  Is there any better way to do this?  To set a floor for the PGP timestamp for all possible edge cases, do I need to ask a Bitcoin node for the timestamps of the 11 blocks before X, and calculate the median?

I am willing to specify that a signer MUST have a reasonably accurate clock.  Hate unauthenticated NTP?  Good!  Buy an inexpensive GPS device, and hook your ntpd up to gpsd.  There is no excuse for running with a wildly inaccurate clock.

Anybody wishing better to understand timestamping issues is encouraged to start with the discussion in Peter Todd’s OTS announcement blog post, “What Can and Can’t Timestamps Prove?
4  Other / Meta / Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie on: April 15, 2020, 05:19:58 AM
On or about 15 May 2019, #1021758 “hacker1001101001” was issued a 60-day temp ban and 2-year signature ban for plagiarism, as discussed below.  I presume that the reason for avoiding a permaban was the user’s purported history of forum contributions, including allegedly fighting against scams (!).

Well, as it turns out, the user’s biggest contribution to the forum was either personally to wield a fraudulent spam sockpuppet army—or by his own admission, to be involved with others in ICO-bumping, i.e. fraudulent paid spamming.

Can we get a summary list of all accounts involved? Will make it easier to make something like this:
I might do it on weekend, but if anyone has time and will, please do.


There are at least 40 accounts mentioned here.

Unedited quote:  A general denial of having a multitude of sockpuppets bumping ICOs, coupled with an admission to having been “involved in bumping business”, i.e. involved in paid spamming—and not only a total lack of remorse, but a defiant, self-righteous assertion of a purported ethical duty to protect his allegedly existing ICO-bumping fraudulent spam accomplices:
Why the fuck are all these ICO bump accounts connected to hacker?

I am repeating my clear explanation to this here. ( Could be my last time )

Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. But I am not involved in any such type of further activities from this accounts as I don't control any of them. I would also like to assure everyone here that I am not involved in bumping now and not willing to facilitate it in future.

Sorry, but I am out of this attacks and repeating my answers again so, I feel I had enough of your dump Questions/Answer sessions.

Whereupon I am hereby acting independently, and separately from marlboroza’s Reputation thread.  I have not requested any other person’s support prior to creating this thread.  Although I am relying on marlboroza’s thread as to fact, that thread discusses trust issues, and this thread appeals to the administration to review the “hacker1001101001” case for the following reasons:

  • Separate Argument A for a ban:  I presume that the leniency granted to the user for his blatant violation of the forum’s strict anti-plagiarism rule was based on the false premise that the user was allegedly a good contributor who perhaps made a naïve mistake.  Whereas the user’s actual major contribution was spamming—and the user was obviously not naïve as to his plagiarism offence, given that he was deeply involved in other wrongdoing.

    (N.b., I do not buy the general argument that a newbie user may naïvely plagiarize without realizing that it is against the rules.  Plagiarism is wrong.  Schoolchildren who get busted for plagiarism are punished for cheating.  Nobody has any excuse for not knowing that it is wrong to rip off somebody else’s words, and pretend they are one’s own.  It is akin to an argument that newbies may not know that theft is wrong.  However, since an ICO-bumping paid spammer was obviously never naïve or innocent, this argument need not be reached here.)

    Since the leniency for plagiarism was based on a false premise, it should be reviewed and reversed, resulting in a permaban on the user including all of his past, present, and future accounts.  It is a well-established principle that bans apply to the person, not merely the account.
  • Separate Argument B for a ban:  ICO-bumping is spamming per se.  Spamming itself is supposed to be a bannable offence.  I have been quietly asking around with a n00b question:  “ELI5, why are ICO-bumpers not banned out of hand?  (‘ELI5’, in the sense that it is the innocent child who says that the Emperor has no clothes.)”  The only response that I have thus far received is, “I don’t know.”

    I respectfully request that the forum’s administration set a strict, explicit policy banning ICO-bumpers just as any other spammers.  As marlboroza recently pointed out, ICO-bumping is a significant problem; and it is spam.

    Meanwhile, I urge that the ban-hammer be dropped here on grounds that spammers get banned, period.  ICO-bumping has always violated the forum’s anti-spam rule on its face, by the definition of the word “spam”; and anybody who may potentially allege a failure to understand that `ICO-bumping == spamming` would be either lying, or mentally retarded.
  • Investigative suggestion:  The forum’s administrators (and global mods?) have access to IP evidence.  If the self-styled “hacker” who fails basic coding shibboleths is so careless with leaving around blockchain evidence, then it is probable that he did not properly hide his IPs when sockpuppet-spamming.

    N.b. that unconnected IPs for different accounts would not prove a negative, since it would be trivial for anyone smart to [deleted so as to not give an instruction manual on how to evade IP checks]; however, positive linkage of accounts by login and/or access IP addresses would be strong evidence that the accounts are all sockpuppets.  Morever, it would probably be more efficient for admins/staff to review the IP logs than to wait for marlboroza to continue painstakingly sifting through blockchain evidence.

    This evidence is only relevant to including the user’s alts under the same ban.  It is irrelevant to the matter of banning the user, who is an admitted spammer previously temp-banned/sig-banned for plagiarism.

Prior discussion of the “hacker1001101001” ban appeal:

You are English-speaking people so hate plagiarism, and here you cover the offender.

This user is an ordinary poster of ICO and BOUNTY in 2017-2018. I do not understand why you give him so many privileges in front of thousands of other users?

You do not find it funny when a man accuses others of plagiarism, but is he himself a plagiarist?
I have no complaints about punishment, it is really cruel but fair.

QFT.  Well, I speak English, and I do not excuse the offender!

Although to my knowledge, forum admins and staff did not publicly state the reason for granting leniency to the user, the opinion of many people supporting such leniency was that the user had allegedly made good contributions.  I don’t want to pick on iasenko here, although I disagree with him; I will simply quote his post as representative of this line of thinking, because he stated his opinion clearly and concisely:

He has many scam investigations and accusation against shady projects with plagiarized whitepaper or fake team. So he was doing quite good for the forum. Just see his last started topics and you will see what I'm talking about.

It's difficult to compare him with the regular posters "discussing useless subjects" just to reach their sig. campaign limit and get some stakes.
I thinks it's fair punishment.

The reason for the 2019 ban of “hacker1001101001”:


I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.
I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.

The user’s excuse for plagiarism:

Thank You Mr. Big for letting me know.

I just don't remember when I did this shit!

Dagnabbit.  Plagiarist’s Bingo (forum thread) needs support for, “I just don’t remember when I did this shit!”

In the thread about his ICO-bumping, the user’s evasiveness and excuses for his spamming evoke the Rules of Spam.

In the real world, people can be fired from their jobs, blacklisted from their careers, and retroactively stripped of their academic degrees for plagiarism.

Surely, an enormous forum spammer and his whole sockpuppet-spammer army do not deserve mercy—not for plagiarism, and not for spamming.


This thread would not have been possible without the tireless investigative work done by marlboroza, the investigation by Lauda which brought marlboroza’s investigation to my attention, and support and contributions from too many people to list succinctly without risk of inadvertently missing somebody.  I must thank everybody who performs such investigative chores in the interest of protecting the forum community against the type of implosion when net.abusers take over.
5  Economy / Reputation / “bonesjonesreturns” claims that “Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence” on: April 07, 2020, 02:16:00 AM
I am open to debate on this matter.

All off topic irrelevant posts will be removed.
Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence as yet.

I have refuted all your so-called “evidence”, as to which you merely dropped links without explanation.  I also pointed out your obvious motives.  Dare to debate?

Well, that took all of 9 minutes and 37 seconds:

Deleted Post
« Sent to: nullius on: Today at 01:31:37 AM »

Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

I do not usually follow Reputation.  But as I was preparing to make this thread, I noticed this:

Subject:  Nullius the scammer supporter and dumb fuck wishes to excuse scamming come here.
Post your lauda defense here scammer supporter not on my nutildah thread.

That was said of a post, fully quoted below, which refuted the false accusations against nutildah, before refuting the false accusations against Lauda.  Discussion of Lauda was certainly on-topic, for OP had slung even more mud against Lauda than against nutildah.

Subject:  DT manipulation & economic warfare targeted against nutildah, Lauda, HHampuz, FJ
Disclosures about my relation (or lack theref) to persons or entities named in OP; I will make these disclosures upfront, because these flamewars typically devolve into such questions:

  • I have no financial interest whatsoever in FortuneJack.  Not past, not present, and not foreseeably expected in the future.  I am moderately critical of them for reasons (i.e., I agree with DarkStar_) completely irrelevant to this thread.
  • I do not wear a paid signature.  I have no financial interest in any signature ad campaign.
  • As for the primary target of this thread:  I am—not exactly friends with nutildah, to put the matter as delicately as I can without being impolite.  I trust-exclude nutildah for reasons completely unrelated to the absurd accusations in OP; ~nutildah was a difficult decision for me to reach, because nutildah has many good tags.  I think that nutildah sometimes makes some good posts; but I have in my pipeline (to be posted later) a reply to yet another misguided nutildah flame at me, so...  I am anything but biased in favour of nutildah.
  • I have no connection to Hhampuz outside what can be seen publicly on this forum.  I respect his reputation.  I have no financial interest in any of his business here.
  • I am honoured to consider Lauda a friend.  Our friendship has never resulted in financial gain for either of us; and although I do not rule that out for the future, I have no current plans or expectation for that.  Also, contrary to troll accusations, Lauda cannot and does not order me around; if she were to try that (as I trust that she would not), then I would blow her off with a sarcastic remark that would be just a little bit more polite to what I say to others.  Nobody commands what I write (or do not write) on this forum.

    I note that OP has specifically accused me of being Lauda’s alt:

    You just need high probability.  So other members that consistently  protect and include lauda on dt are alts according to lauda. Or if you share the same views as lauda on lauda or laudas enemies you are his alt.
    Nullius is his alt and many on fortunejack are his alts.
    You will never have irrefutable proof that would be impossible.

    I take the parts which I have set in boldface as evidence that OP is personally unacquainted with such arcane concepts as friendsProtip:  Friendship may occur between people who share similar opinions and interests.

I think that as to the allegations in OP, I am as close to being independent and unbiased as anybody is.  (Nobody who posts on these threads is completely unbiased.)

Having so said:

Economic warfare

Economic warfare by attacking one’s advertisers is practically an institution in many Western countries, nowadays.  As a method of suppressing the speech or actions of persons deemed “undesirable”, it started in the Nineteenth Century and grew to be quite systematized in the Twentieth Century.

It is why all the mainstream news media have biased news coverage, and allow only a narrow range of opinions:  Anybody who does otherwise, goes bankrupt when their advertisers are driven away by boycotts or threats thereof.

It is why unpopular opinions do not get heard, and it is in many cases a major reason why dissidents struggle financially.

On this forum, I have noticed systematic attacks against a completely unrelated advertiser and campaign manager:  ChipMixer and DarkStar_.  It is in protest against this attack that I wear an unsolicited, unpaid ChipMixer ad in my signature.  In that case, I believe that ChipMixer itself is the target; I have been intending to write a more extensive post about this.

OP here is an obvious alt account with an axe to grind.  On the basis of twisted, dishonest mischaracterizations of past events, as discussed below, he is essentially attempting to wage financial warfare for the purpose of manipulating the trust system.  This is one of the worst instances of (attempted) trust system abuse that I have yet seen.

And it is perpetrated via manipulative character assassination using lies and smear-tactics, as seen below.

In re nutildah

Nutildah the member who has defined himself by both his words and actions to be a willing scam facilitator for pay, he has also started using red tags to deter people from warning others how untrustworthy and dangerous he is.

The linked topic is a 2019 accusation that nutildah put his forum account up for sale in 2016, and then withdrew it from the market.  No account sale ever actually occurred.

Although that episode may make me question nutildah’s judgment, it occurred almost four years ago; and to my knowledge, no similar behaviour has ever been repeated.

Edited topic title: Not for sale - decided to keep it a long time ago, you fucks.
But it would be worth even less once someone tags the account as being sold.
You should of sold using a dummy account first to avoid this from happening.

They don't call him nutildah for nuttin' Wink
Maybe he didn't do any buying or selling or trading with this account so it doesn't matter so much.

You're right, I didn't, and for everybody's future reference the account is no longer for sale. I've decided to keep it.

Although I myself am strongly opposed to account sales of almost any kind, it is absurd to spin this into evidence of nutildah being a “willing scam facilitator for pay” (!).  What scam was facilitated?  None.  What was paid?  Nothing.

OP is lying.

In re Lauda

First linked thread:  Thanks, I had not seen that one.  LOL.  Quoted above, for the later specific accusation that I am Lauda’s alt, not only Lauda’s “alt or pal” as stated in OP of that thread.

What does this gobshite alt or pal of lauda the member nullius do as soon as he wakes up from a very long sleep??

OP then proceeds to show that, in effect, Lauda was involved in an altcoin in 2014, when she was relatively new to crypto; and she changed her opinion about that coin at some undetermined point between 2014 and 2017.  (I am guessing by about 2015, though I have not reviewed this matter specifically.)  In effect, it is an accusation that she is not allowed to change her mind in the course of the proceeding three years from 2014–17... and this is somehow relevant in 2020.

That makes Lauda a “proven scammer”?

The nonsense directed at me is even more ridiculous:  OP paints me as a hypocrite because in 2020, I am friends with someone who said some things disagreeable to me in 2014, and later changed her mind and said things that I absolutely agree with.  Say what?  That is so wrong that it’s “not even wrong”.  It does not even make sense.

(For the record, the only altcoins that I myself have ever possessed in any amount are Zcash, where I got my start (LOL, Lauda), and Monero.  Better idea:  Improve Bitcoin privacy, and transact on the Lightning Network.)

Now we see nullius the double standards hypocrite bitch of lauda. Who is supporting lauda and running around looking like a lauda is trying to punish another member for a similar but less serious crime?? This person is not lying like Lauda?

First of all, I disagree that that’s “less serious”.  Fork attacks on Bitcoin are the most serious altcoin scam of all; and jbreher is a highly experienced user who continues repeating objectively false misinformation that has been debunked to him numerous times over the years.  Second of all, I never accused jbreher of a crime:  I mean that in the sense that I would not lock him in prison for his forum posts, if I had the power to do so.  I do think that many of his posts are dishonest and damaging, and people should be warned about that.

If jbreher turns around and starts repudiating what he said before, honestly and with full understanding—if he becomes one of the most active opponents of the same lies and FUD that he has been spreading—then I will buy him a (virtual) beer!  You may quote me on that.

Anyway, that is irrelevant to Lauda.

Second linked thread:  To describe Lauda as an “extortionist” based on a single instance of an ill-advised act not done for financial gain is ridiculous.  As is well-known to anyone who has actually trawled through those old threads, Lauda got overeager pursuing an alleged scammer, and set up an admittedly stupid “sting operation” that got way out of control.  The consequences to Lauda were severe, any negative impact to her “victim” was adequately remediated, and Lauda has never repeated such behaviour.  “Extortionist”!?

This sums it up as for the target of the non-financially-motivated “extortion”, zeroaxl:

Additional Notes:  Upon receipt of the extortion message from Lauda, zeroaxl opened a scam accusation thread against Lauda, and about 16 hours later, all three (the threads opened by zeroaxl, TMAN, and minifrij) threads were locked, edited so that there was no content in each of their respective OPs, and moved to archival within 20 minutes of eachother.

Looks like they all agreed to sort the issue privately between themselves, since all the threads were locked and edited with 'TBC'. Zeroxal is still active on the forum and he could unlock his own accusation thread if he wished to, so I don't see why would you create this one.

This sums up the consequences to Lauda, which Lauda accepted without whining about it:

Are you now claiming that Laura is trustworthy and their account should be red trust free?
What lauda did was wrong, and was a display of poor judgement. With that being said, what happened, happened a long time ago, I have good reason to believe lauda is remorseful for what he did, and to my knowledge he has not made a similar mistake since. I have left the extortion thread unlocked, and it will remain that way provided no trolls bump it to stir up drama.

In addition to being remorseful, Lauda was also punished with the severe consequences of being fired from a prestigious paid job that was probably quite important to her:

You got what you wanted. Lauda is no longer a staff member. You can lock this thread now.


To call Lauda “a proven scammer and extortionist” is, again, a lie.

In re Hhampuz and FortuneJack

All that is alleged is that... nutildah and Lauda receive financial compensation for advertising FortuneJack.

On that basis, an attempt is made to damage the reputations of both parties.

The whole thing is a smear job based on false and defamatory statements directed at some parties, with the impact bounced back toward other parties in an attempt to manipulate and coerce all of four targets.

Let us work together to rid bitcointalk of scammers and projects or companies that pay scammers to enable scamming or reduce the value of our trust system.


Go to your trust settings delete default trust and exclude scammers and those assisting scammers

The evidence is indisputable hence why they should not be getting paid to facilitate scamming on bitcointalk by sponsors.

“Indisputable?”  The “evidence” is that years ago, nutildah began to do something wrong, and then hastily backed off before actually doing it—and that years ago, Lauda did something wrong, admitted it, took responsibility, settled things privately with the wronged party, suffered severe consequences without complaint, and has never repeated that behaviour in any way.

Both wrongs were inchoate.  Neither wrong involved scamming or facilitating scams—that is a defamatory mischaracterization of the facts.

OP has the obvious motive of shutting up two quite different individuals with whose trust decisions he disagrees.  This thread is a smear job, calculated to destroy reputations via defamation and to financially harm people with false accusations.

I am open to debate on this matter.

All off topic irrelevant posts will be removed.
Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence as yet.

I have refuted all your so-called “evidence”, as to which you merely dropped links without explanation.  I also pointed out your obvious motives.  Dare to debate?

Local rules:  #2771981 “bonesjonesreturns” is prohibited from posting here.  Others will be moderated at my discretion.  Will be deleted without regard to content:  Posts which quote the whole OP, or which use rapid-motion, brightly-coloured animated GIFs that I deem too visually distracting, or which use too many animated GIFs.
6  Economy / Reputation / ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement on: April 03, 2020, 01:21:04 AM
I never argued with ibminer’s ~exclusion of me over an admitted past error in judgment on my part (and I may add, one uncharacteristic of me).  That is a matter of personal standards.  An alia scam investigator who hit the case before ibminer nevertheless has me in his inclusions list; ibminer has excluded me since that time; in the circumstance, neither position is facially unreasonable.

I so state upfront, to make it clear that I am not arguing over ibminer’s use of the trust system.  This is a separate matter:  The word which I have hereby underscored is factually false and defamatory, and of a nature that is peculiarly scandalous and damaging to my reputation.

On top of that, because nullius has already shown me in the past he has severely flawed judgement when he promoted and attempted to make a "legend" on this forum out of an underage e-whore trying to long con this forum. His judgement of me wouldn't phase me.

The negative implication of the term “e-whore” is an expression of opinion; however, the the obvious and unarguable (contra)factual implication of the phrase “underage e-whore” is a false allegation that I was both engaged in and promoting online sexual activity with a person below legal age for such activity.  Taken as a whole, the statement conflates the 15-year-old male scammer who controlled or was associated with the “alia” account, with the female who was doing online sex work through the same account.

That is egregiously dishonest on ibminer’s part.  As to fact, these are direct quotations from the pertinent investigation in 2018:

Actually, you are more than questioning theymos’ reliability:  You are directly impugning it.  I and many others rely on this as sterling information: [— screenshot of theymos’ neutral tag GGB-verifying alia —]

My neutral rating was intended only as a statement of fact. alia was verified on /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin....  The person in the verification photos is definitely female, and is extremely unlikely to be 15. Furthermore, alia has had a number of customers for her camgirl stuff on this forum who were apparently mostly satisfied. Therefore, it is most likely that the person behind the alia account was hiring a camgirl to do their camgirl-related work.

ibminer is well aware of these quotes:  He was directly involved in that thread.

As such, ibminer has knowingly falsely accused both me and, by unavoidable implication, theymos of peddling “underage” sex on a forum as to which various entities would relish an excuse to attack for censorship purposes.

This shows severely flawed judgment:  It shows that in the heat of anger, ibminer will toss out a factually false, defamatory, quite dangerous comment which reeks of the Four Horsemen of the Cryptocalypse, without considering the potential harm to others.  At the very least, it is harmful to my forum reputation.

Wherefore, I demand that ibminer modify his above-quoted post of 2020-02-13 with a clearly marked edit striking out the word “underage”, and stating that that word is retracted as factually incorrect.

When I have stated the foregoing, a failure to affirmatively retract and correct the false statement would evince actual malice.

ibminer is, of course, “entitled to his opinions”, which I really don’t give a damn about either way.

(To be clear, as a crypto-anarchist in cypherspace, I am applying some legal terms of art in the foregoing for the principal purpose of precise analysis in addressing significant reputational issues—including the question of whether ibminer is maliciously dishonest, or “only” extremely careless about the truth when he is angry and in the mood to hurl insults.)

Aside, for the recordBefore the alia scam accusation broke, the only (putative) photo that I ever saw of alia was a faceless, not-quite-topless photo that was posted on imgur, and publicly linked from one of alia’s forum threads.  I never saw alia on video.  I never saw alia nude.  I never saw alia’s crotch depicted at all (clothed or otherwise).  Indeed, I never saw or in any way possessed any visual depictions of alia that could not be legally shown on public television in most any Western jurisdiction (including every jurisdiction with which I am familiar in both Europe and the United States).

In the scam investigation thread, someone dug up a fully-clothed photo including the face of a female who was apparently involved with the male scammer’s old account; however, to my knowledge, it was never proved that that was the same female as did faceless “alia” camshows reported by customers on various threads.

I am a man of words, I was never alia’s customer, and I was in no particular hurry.  To the contrary:  As a most basic test of sincerity, I was waiting to see how long it would take from the time of alia’s “I think I’m in love” green-trust tag for her to send me what she charged others money to see.  She never actually did so.  Thus, my personal communications with alia were strictly textual.  Those communications were predicated on the reasonable belief that I was communicating, and exclusively communicating, with a GGB-verified camgirl.  When I first became aware that the alia account was misrepresented in any way, I immediately deceased all communications with it other than those reasonably calculated to ascertain evidence needed for me to get to the truth of the matter, and cooperate in the scam investigation.  As a further precaution, despite my potential embarrassment with some of them, I deliberately left intact all of my PMs with alia—just in case the forum’s administration were ever to have any suspicions about me in the matter.  (The PMs are still there—*cringe*.)

My thinking:  “If she means it, then sooner rather than later,
she will take the initiative to show off to me
some ‘freebies’ without being asked.”

Protip:  I am not so easy to manipulate, after all.
If you want to fuck with me, have fun—
but do not fuck with me.

Much though I like to have fun, I am a man of principle—and I do not “think with the little head”, as the saying goes.  Moreover, I am aware of the potential dangers to a pseudonymous activist who addresses controversial issues in adversarial settings.  I have spent decades assiduously avoiding anything with even the slightest hint of illegal underage sexual content online, both for reasons of principle and for practical self-protection against potential entrapment.

ibminer’s factually false and defamatory “underage” remark is grossly unjust to me.

The foregoing is a moderately edited edition of text that I wrote on or about 13 February 2020.  I indecisively withheld it, out of respect for ibminer’s considerable work against forum scams; I now see that that is always a mistake, for to protect my reputation, I must tie up this loose end before simply ignoring him.

Local Rules:  ibminer is the subject of this thread, and therefore has a reasonable right of reply.  Others will be moderated at my discretion.  Posts which quote the whole OP will be deleted without remark.
7  Economy / Reputation / Lauda created the coronavirus! on: April 01, 2020, 08:29:33 PM


THE TRUTH IS OUT:  L̨̙̘̠͉̀̍̑͟ą̷̲̘͚͎͎̙̩͚͙̪̋ͅu̵͕̬͔̰͍̰̮̳̪͓͚̟̲̔̇d̢͇͉̟̱̩̃̉̚ͅa̻̩͙̫͙͈̽͆ created SARS-CoV-2.  Proofs for all to s̨̗͉̞̳̋̆͊͊̍͊͊͐͟ę͈̱̙̯̂̈́͑͐͆͊̍͜͝ȩ̨̢̛̰͍̟͑̑̀̈̽͘͠:

0. Lauda is evil!

L̨̨̬̭͓͚̻̟̖̳̟̽͝ͅa̤͖͙͖͊̑͋͋̑̒͑̿́͡ȗ̸̦̂͌͋̐d̛͌͗̓̏̑͒͂͌͂̐̏̄̈a͕̟̹͊̈ is the opposite of Virtue, according to this forum’s administrator, the Holy Thermos:

Virtue [is] the edit distance between your name and "Lauda".

The one ẃ̠̲̇ͅḣ͓̖̯͋o̢̱̲ is the opposite of Virtue created the coronavirus!  It is purely and simply logical!

1. Lauda is a w͖͗̾̏̿̏́̀̂͆î̬̥͚͖͂̈́͗͂͛̍͜ţ͕̤̯̜̂͑͋̓͗̇̂̇̋͘c̛̯͎̬̙͑̂̑͌̊̂͟͡h͎͙̰̑̋̓͆̇̐̐̊͘̚͜͟ !

Lauda is well-known to practise witchcraft.

It is also well-known and MEDICALLY DOCUMENTED that she uses witchcraft to cause diseases, such as pleurodelinaemia.

It is ą̨̛̠̈͂͋͋̇̐̄ MATHEMATICAL SYLLOGISM:  Ȃ̸͂r̛̓̍͊̋̿o̊̒͐̌͒͊u̵͒̾n̴̿̏͊͛͑̌d͑̍̌̔ two years ago, Lauda did this...

Lauda became angry at me when I failed to keep up a regular schedule of worshipping the devil and oppressing spammers and scammers poor, innocent denizens of the forum.  Now, it is difficult for me to type any posts at all.  Just look at me!  My fingers!

Loading photo of nullius as a newt...
nullius under Lauda’s spell
(Photo credit: Connor Long.)

...thus, it is writ in b̛̍̄̌͗̆̇̊͘͡l̛͆͋͛͂̆̓͋͘͡ơ̿͆͌́̆̐̔̏̎ö̈̒͂̇͗͌͋͊͠d̔́̓́̄̀̾͡͠͡, she definitely did this:

2. Lauda suppresses THE TRUTH with psy-ops!

A bit disappointing that so many Bitcoiners fall for random pseudo-science conspiracy bullshit. Just remember when the next time you tell somebody that they are a sheep for not using Bitcoin o̵¯̯̤̙̰̯͖̱̞͔̬̗̒͟r̡͖̹̥͉̬̻̻̻̺͐͠ͅ hating banks, look in the mirror first.  Undecided

Lot of people using this word lately. I think they can be safely ignored. It's just a way to dismiss anything you don't like.
If you do not know what pseudo-science is, then I am not surprised by anything. What is next, reptilians ordered Bill Gates to create the virus?  Roll Eyes Alex Jones got nothing on you folk.

Duh, how obvious could ẗ̯̹̜̭̯͉̒̓͆͘̚ḩ̸̺͚͈̩̞̓̄͋͗̓͝͝i̸̧̛̻͖͔̼͒̀̔͒͂̚ͅṡ̼͓̳͇̤̍͊̽͑͌͛͜ be!?  Ļ̡̛̭̫̳͔̖͍̰̗̐̋͟ͅâ̖̱͗̊͘̚͠͠ú͇̪͉̹̯̖̲̝͊͐͑ͅd̡͍̠̤̻̺͇̺͟ă̌́̄͌̂̔̋͡͠ created the rumour that Bill Gates created the virus, and then denied it, as p̹͍̪͒̽͟͠a̰͎͈̱͎̔̐͠r̵̤̥̤͉͙͋̈̏t̴̖̰̪̭͗̊̚͟ of her own cover-up!

3. Lauda is the leader of a̫͍͙͚͑̂͛́͋̄̓̊̍͘ dangerous cult!

Lauda currently has two DT negative trust feedbacks for creating “a pseudo-religious cult”, i.e. the Cult of Lauda.  N.b. that peloso is currently in DT1, and Balthazar is currently in DT2.  This is proof that democratic DT is broken by design they both have trustworthy judgment.;u=101872;dt
Trust summary for Lauda

Trusted feedback

peloso2020-03-03ReferenceCreated a pseudo-religious cult to manipulate default trust list
Balthazar2020-03-03ReferenceCreated a pseudo-religious cult to manipulate default trust list. If I remember correctly, this user was claiming that such activities are untrustworthy (see peloso user profile for details).

Whereupon, let us apply the power of sound reason:

  • Cult leaders are dangerous people.  Some cult leaders do bioterrorism.
  • Lauda is a v̯͇̰͔̖̰̫̼͛̿̽̆̿e̝͚̝̘͙͚̗͑̐́͛̊͜r̝̥̻̗̬̲̀̒̿̈́͜ͅy̢̨̞̼̞̪̝̽̆͒ serious cult leader.  (I know that DT members would never issue negative feedback for patently ridiculous non-reasons!)
  • Therefore, Lauda created SARS-CoV-2.  Q.E.D.!

4. Lauda is “the greatest [] threat”!

...Lauda [+1000]...

...the greatest current authoritarian threat who would crush the liberty you portray to protect...

Who other than “the greatest threat” would create a global pandemic?  Enough said.

(Further proofs may be added as I have time to imagine them discover them.)

What more proof do ÿ͉͔̖͇̓̊̈̆͐͘̚͠ơ̛͎͖͗̐̀́̽̍͐̄͟ͅu̹̰̖̥͐̓͗͆̂̾͗̆͑͑̓ need!?  It is cǫ̴̖̱̼̺̪̯͓͈͙̈͝m̵̧͓̘̩̭̝̱͖̠̋̀͜p̲̟̪̠̹̙̲͇̺̔͒͟l̡̟̯̝̲̬͕͑̓͜͟e̢̧̞̪͍̤̥̲̜̙t̴͔̺̱̥̲̥̮̭̼̞̾̏e̢̢̧͓̬̘̼̟͜ļ̺͕͖̗̱̲̫͎̀ͅy̡̧̛̼͕͍̖̯̯͈͙̿ obvious.  If you disagree, then you must be part of t͕͓̖̭̤̤ͅh̠͕̳̫̪̲̻ȩ̶̫̖̳̼̠̺ cover-up.

It’s not the CIA.

It’s not the Chinese.

It’s not Bill Gates.

And of course, there is absolutely no way that this virus w̧̩̯̝̒͜͜a̪̼̯̹̮̠ş̧̱̮̟̘̎ a “natural” occurrence!





<blink>tHe ẗ̶̗͚́̋RuTh!!!11</blink>
As I was initiated into a cryptic cult with rites of the goddess Hecate, the renowned paranormal researcher William Blake caught this photograph of Lauda shapeshifted to the form of a flying catbat:

The witch LAUDA
Identified Flying Object (IFO)
(Better than a UFO.  Much better than an ICO.)

8  Other / Politics & Society / BREAKING NEWS: Federal Reserve Announces Decentralization of the U.S. Dollar on: March 23, 2020, 09:00:10 PM


Federal Reserve Announces Decentralization of the U.S. Dollar

23 March 2020

TERRA NULLIUS, CYPHERSPACE (*NULL)—The United States Federal Reserve has announced that it will decentralize the U.S. dollar by distributing money-printing technology to each and every individual.

The new QE Infinity® brand of money-printer will permit people to produce dollars in the safety of their homes, without the risk of violating social distancing rules.  A contract for manufacturing of the printer has been provisionally awarded to Wuhan Fintech Ltd.

For individuals and businesses who wish to refill their bank accounts without the risk of physical activity, initial releases of the Virtual QE Infinity® software package will soon be available for Apple iPhone, Google Android, and Microsoft Windows.  A Virtual QE Infinity® web app will also be available at MakeMoney.Gov.

U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted, “It’s my idea.  Why should Wall Street get all the fun?  I promised the American people that I would stand up for Main Street.  So I told Stevie, call the bank, make it happen, or else YOU’RE FIRED!  #MAGA

“Unlike Bitcoin, this is not money created out of thin air:  It is real money, backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States 🇺🇸,” Trump added in a subsequent tweet.

Trump simultaneously announced a Federally funded scientific programme to cure the coronavirus, Ebola, cancer, AIDS, and death by the power of wishful thinking.

“If you think positive, think big, there’s no limit to what you can do.  People believe in the dollar.  This works the same way,” Trump tweeted.

The Dow soared infinite points within minutes after the announcement.

In reaction to the news, a European Central Bank spokescreature announced, “To keep the E.U. competitive in this new reality, E.C.B. President Christine Lagarde will be stepping aside to make way for the financial expertise of Zimbabwe’s President Emeritus, Robert Mugabe.  Mr. Mugabe will be granted honourary E.U. citizenship, as soon as American scientists can raise him from the dead for us.”

In unrelated news, the E.C.B. headquarters will be relocating from Frankfurt to Weimar.


9  Economy / Reputation / Nullian Verification: Post your PGP keys and timestamped statements here! on: March 15, 2020, 10:04:06 PM
Be élite!  Use crypto!

See also relevant technical discussion of the future of Nullian Verification.

I now invite others to post their own verification statements on this thread.  If I can get at least a few others doing this regularly, then I will start a git repository with timestamped signed attestations of my own observations of what was posted by what account, and push it to Github.  That way, everybody will be able to pull all of the substantive data from this thread (including a collection of PGP keys) conveniently, without tedious and error-prone copying and pasting from a forum thread.

Please refer to my 2020-04-28 statement for a reference on how this should be done.  Expressed in pseudocode, v0.0.1-alpha of the required format is:

"Bitcoin Forum name:\t[your name]\n"
"Bitcoin Forum userid:\t[your userid]\n"
"PGP primary key:\t[your PGP fingerprint]\n"
"# Ten most-recent Bitcoin block hashes:\n"
"[height]\t[ISO date]\t[hex hash]\n"

That is human-readable; and I think that it should be not too horrible to wrangle with /bin/sh and standard shell tools.

DO NOT include the date, which is contained in the Signature Creation Time subpacket of your PGP signature.  DO NOT include any other extraneous data that may confuse scripts.

Include a complete OTS file, base64ed in a separate <code> block.  Posts without a timestamp file will be deleted.

For your first post on this thread, and any time that your PGP is updated, please include your PGP key in a separate <code> block.  If desired, you may also include links to archival evidence that you have previously claimed the same PGP primary key with the same forum account; if you do, keep any descriptions concise and factual.

I plan to invite third parties to attest which accounts they see posting what; however, that will need to wait for me to develop a reasonable format for it.  DO NOT quote other people’s posts here; quote-posts will be silently deleted.

DO NOT post claims to have verified others’ signatures and timestamps!  Such claims encourage newbies to believe Gavin-style fake “verifiations”.  I will delete all such claims from this thread.

Anybody may post properly formatted verification statements, timestamps, and PGP keys on this thread.  However, all discussion is off-topic; posts containing any kind of chit-chat will be deleted without comment.  If you wish to engage in expert-level technical discussion of a better way to do this, please take it up on my relevant thread in Development & Technical Discussion.  Otherwise, please wait for that better way to be developed.

Original post text, with updated list of links to statements:

Much have I complained about the ad hoc security measures in the various “stake” threads.  Well, I should offer a better solution.  Here it is—at least, the start of something better.  I intend to do this semi-regularly—at least once per month, unless I am “sleeping”.

If my forum account has posted recently, and significantly more than a month has passed since this thread was refreshed with a new PGP-signed, OTS-timestamped message containing verifiably recent information, then you should demand a fresh statement consistent in its evidentiary strength with the statements that I have previously provided.  Be very suspicious if the demand is refused or ignored.

I intend to refine my way of doing this, based on future experience.  If or when I work out a standard format that is relatively easy for others to fully verify, then I may open a new “stake” thread where quoting is prohibited as spam, and trustless, cryptographically verifiable evidence is required in a standardized, easy-to-verify format.

Verification statements (listed in reverse chronological order):

Local rules:  Only the following are on-topic in this thread.  Anything else will be silently deleted as off-topic.

  • New signed and timestamped statements from me.
  • Smart questions stated with at least ordinary social courtesy.
  • Competent technical questions, comments, suggestions, or critiques.  I welcome competent technical discussion!  However, I am currently out of patience with people who make repeated incorrect assertions out of ignorance, even when I provide something tantamount to a free tutorial.

Do not publicly say that you have verified a statement.  This gives a false sense of security, and tends to inculcate in the public a habit of relying others to “verify”, instead of verifying for themselves.  This is crypto!  It is supposed to be trustless.  Discussion of how to verify these things is welcome—claims that you have verified something are not.

If you want to post a similar statement yourself, please e-mail or PM me first to discuss it.  The way that I am doing this is admittedly a bit rough; and I don’t want to start a trend before improving that, perhaps with your suggestions.  Thanks.
10  Other / Politics & Society / Hybris on: March 15, 2020, 05:53:59 PM
Dear readers of the forum:

Some of you will die from the coronavirus.  (—Some few of you:  The virus has low lethality except to the aged or otherwise frail.)  The virus may kill me, too; maybe, maybe not.  That is acceptable:  Life is risk, and death is a part of life.  My only sadness is that sometimes, the worst befalls the best of people.

What is unacceptable is panic, bureaucratic “do something!” tyranny, and worst of all, hybris.

I hereby use an archaic spelling for the subject of a principle long forgot.

You cannot conquer Nature, and you never will.  Cursed are those who pretend they can.

Medical science will not cure all diseases, or stop new ones from rising.  Medicine is of limited power.  That is not a reason to turn to quacks, who are not only powerless, but outright injurious.  It is a reason to destroy within yourself every particle of the sick modern mindset based in the fantasy that the world can be made safe.

And there will never be a “Singularity”.  Those who chase such notions are not only indulging delusions worthy of a psychotic, but also actively destroying human intelligence.

The processing power of wetware has been declining for centuries—both in the middle of the Gaussian distribution, and at the high end.  Stop lowering standards, stop substituting technics for thought, and stop worshipping the religious prophecy of a godlike machine whom you assume would be benevolent toward you!

Of course, any perfectly rational superior intelligence would immediately decide that talking apes are a plague, and exterminate them.  (And the talking apes are so stupid that they presume they could impose an Asimov-style diktat on a superior mind, without that mind promptly hacking around their little security system.)  The talking apes should be thankful that they are and always will be incapable of creating an intelligence superior to their own.

Now that I have given you a cold dose of reality, I will turn aside for a nightmare.

The Great Dreamer

Deep in the void of nullity,
I stared into the Abyss;
And the Abyss smil’d at me...

nullius is cthulhu. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

0. Governments seize upon an emergency to arrogate unto themselves “emergency powers”.  Whether they create the emergency, or merely take opportunistic advantage of some existing situation producing panic which they can encourage and exploit. all that they need is an emergency.

The emergency may be a more or less real problem.  For example, the Roosevelt gold seizure exploited panic over the Great Depression.  No reasonable person denies that the Great Depression caused widespread worry and suffering.  I must mention this explicitly, because imbeciles the feeble-minded the subnormal Americans mental retards persons with intellectual disabilities irrationally assume that tyrants can only exploit fake events.

It must be remembered that “emergency powers” of a dictator can be applied dutifully as Cincinnatus, or wielded as a weapon of tyranny.

1. Under the banner of Emergency, governments inure panicked sheep to:

  • Government control of food supplies
  • Government control of both local and long-distance travel
  • Arbitrary lockdowns
  • Direct government control of each individual’s body, under the rubric of e.g. “healthcare”
  • Arbitrary, peremptory government orders of any kind whatsoever
  • Total government control of communications*
(* In my nightmare, this has not yet started; thus, I would still be able to post this message.  The worst part of my nightmare is when I discover that dissent is so marginal amidst the mass-panic, the government finds it unnecessary to control communications.)

All of these actions are praised by the sheep, due to mass panic.  Dissidents will be immediately labelled “conspiracy theorists” and/or accused of wanting for people to die.

2.  The government’s actions do not actually stop the emergency.  This is a feature, not a bug.  Short-term “emergency” measures become long-term daily realities to which people have become accustomed:  The instant new normality.

(For my nightmare, it would be quite convenient if, say, the “emergency” were a rapidly spreading infectious disease with high fear factor and low lethality.  With a bit of luck, such an emergency may continue for long enough to make total, inescapable global tyranny an accomplished fact—or even indefinitely!)

What a nightmare!  I am glad that I don’t live in that world.

* nullius shakes himself awake.

A Not Unrelated Tangent

I have long fancied sitting down with an anti-vaxer, looking him deadpan in the eye, and telling him that yes, I fully agree that all childhood vaccinations should be stopped:  Vaccination removes the necessary selective pressure for a healthy, robust, finely-tuned immune system—and substitutes in its place the empty hybris of a supposition that humans can cure all diseases.

Hey, anti-vaxers, here is a challenge for you:  I will publicly support you, if you will be the first to step up and declare that much though we may wish otherwise, we need some more dead kids in each generation—to prevent unlimited mass suffering and potential extinction in all the generations yet unborn.

I need not reach the question of how bad the side effects of vaccines are or aren’t.  Of course, all medicines have side effects.  Whether vaccines are benign except in a few rare, unfortunate cases, or causing widespread injuries about which The Truth is suppressed by The Medical Establishment, the answer is irrelevant to me.

No more namby-pamby nonsense about how e.g. measles isn’t really that dangerous!  Of course it’s dangerous, as are all the other childhood diseases now prevented by standard vaccinations.  I don’t need to know medicine:  I know history.  People used to have eight, ten, or even twenty (yes, literally, twenty) kids with the knowledge that some would die, and others would survive, based on factors that are not and never will be under human control.  That is called natural selection—a law that works just the same in talking apes as in the ones who only grunt, plus in all other animals, plants, fungi, and prokaryotes.  It even works on viruses.  In the aggregate, it is necessary to the long-term health and survival of a population group.

Before vaccinations, people had their immune systems perpetually improved (and protected from degeneration) by evolution.  As an ancillary benefit, people knew that death is a part of life.  They feared less, and loved more.  They were very sad sometimes, but almost never prone to depression.  If they believed in any gods, they prayed and meant it.  If they did not, they needed the iron-hearted rationality which smiles as it embraces the gift of life in a cruel, unthinking universe subject to the inexorable operation of blind natural laws.  Above all, they were better grounded in reality.

—Eh, what’s that?  You want to have your cake and eat it, too?  Very well; fork off.  I will just sit over here with the pro-vaxers.  They do deny, or at least ignore the principles of evolution.  Well, at least they don’t claim that old-fashioned childhood diseases weren’t dangerous (!), and that all kids would be just fine with no vaccinations (!!).  Anyway, vaccinations have now been ongoing for long enough that what were once moderately dangerous childhood diseases could probably become horrific plagues.  With a brush of hybris, we have painted ourselves into a corner:  Congratulations, we are now physiologically dependent on accursed technology as a substitute for powers that our bodies once had—and we are still, I observe, just as vulnerable to disease overall, if not moreso:  The deserts of hybris.

I want to punch the next person who alleges to me that modern technology has increased average human lifespans, that life used to be “nasty, brutish, and short”, or that most people used to die in their thirties (!).

These are lies.  Moreover, they are lies so facially absurd that they can only be believed by one who has put in abeyance all his faculties of reason, and even common sense.

The average life expectancy is almost exactly the same today as it was a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago—for humans who have reached biological adulthood.

Dead kids drag down the overall average an awful lot.  Dead babies, even more.  Depending on how averages are calculated—dead neonates, most of all.

The contribution of modern medicine to average human lifespans can be almost entirely chalked up to three things:  (0) Childhood vaccinations, (1) prenatal care, and (2) neonatal care (especially for premature and other abnormal births).  —All things which reduce selective pressure for stronger immunities, naturally healthier pregnancies, and overall more robust constitutions.  Each kid who is saved by vaccinations today condemns unlimited future children and adults to the ravages of disease.  Each woman whose pregnancy is salvaged by modern medicine inflicts untold harm on all future generations of her daughters.

So, anyway, adults nowadays can expect to live just as long as those who managed to grow up in the Evil Old Days.  The difference nowadays is that people are now sicker, weaker, and abjectly dependent on technologies that did not exist in the Evil Old Days.  Quality of life is lower.

When Nature places you on the horns of a dilemma, don’t shoot the messenger.

* nullius pleases nobody.

I cannot fit here in the margin a long note on an hypothesis that I have drawn by roughly eyeballing rates of cancer (especially, cancer in the young) and autoimmune diseases against the historical timeline of modern, vaccinated generations.  (Cancer being what happens when the body’s immune system fails to impose its authority on renegade cells that occur from time to time; autoimmune diseases being what happens when an ill-bred, ill-mannered immune system goes stark raving mad, and eats the body from the inside out.)

The foregoing is an original observation on my part.  I have never before seen it mentioned, much less discussed.  I thought of this years ago.  I keep to myself these thoughts, inter alia.

Just as the best of thought was once upon a time writ in classical Latin, or even reserved in Greek, or...

* nullius is currently seeking Sanskrit translators for his most precious thoughts.

...kept private.



Information wants to be valued—and I do not mean that in the monetary sense.  Intelligence is priceless.

Thanks to the pandemic plague of idiocy, I must write this in big red letters:  ⚠ WARNING:  Nothing in the foregoing suggests any individual benefit to a child in remaining unvaccinated.

If you misread such a message into what I wrote, please re-read.  —Or better yet, stop reading!  You should never have been taught to read.

Quote from: Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, „Vom Lesen und Schreiben“ (‘About Reading and Writing’)
Dass Jedermann lesen lernen darf, verdirbt auf die Dauer nicht allein das Schreiben, sondern auch das Denken.

I am now in bad straits.

To preserve my privacy, and because I am not asking for any assistance that nobody on this forum can reasonably give me anyway, I do not wish to discuss the details.

I will say that I am unconcerned about the virus.  It is not Black Plague.  It is not Ebola.  It is not even smallpox, which countless generations of various population groups just lived with throughout recorded history before modern times, and Europeans survived for at least a thousand years!  Either I will be infected, or I won’t.  If I become infected, then either I will die, or I won’t (...yet... nobody lives forever).  Any which way, I am emotionally unmoved.  I do take rational precautions to reduce the probability of infection.  And that’s that.

I do not fear the virus.

I fear the government which claims jurisdiction over my secure undisclosed location.  Its current behaviour is alarming.

I fear the people talking apes around me.  They are panicking, behaving irrationally, and clamouring for an aggressive government response.  Predictably, the government replies with a bureaucratic mess that spectacularly fails to prevent the spread of the virus, whilst instantly instantiating a de facto dictatorship—not potential dictatorship, actual dictatorship, right now, today!  Nobody notices.

* nullius is nobody.

If this does not blow over fast (viz., if the virus does not magically disappear right quickly), then the foreseeable alternatives are two sides of the same coin:  Tyranny and anarchy (that last being “anarchy of the rabble”).

If all hell breaks loose, then it is foreseeable that my area will be overrun by roving bands of criminals violently pillaging from anybody who has food—or just hurting people for fun.  Moreover, as the government starts to collapse, it will clamp down as hard as it can as it spins out of control.

And if all hell doesn’t break loose, that only means that the new normality is total State control of food, personal movement, and who-knows-what-else tomorrow.

If any of this seems alarmist, look to history.  Alarmists like to predict Ends Of The World:  Jesus floating down from a cloud, invasion by space aliens, etc., etc.  I am predicting that if the current course of events does not change soon, something will happen that has happened many times in history—except that it has never yet happened on a totally global scale.  Hmmm.

Perhaps the Singularity is here after all.  But talking apes did not achieve it.

Quote from: nullius
Of course, any perfectly rational superior intelligence would immediately decide that talking apes are a plague, and exterminate them.

History tells me of people’s comportment, their self-mastery, and their self-discipline until the last moment—in hours of inevitable mass-death and destruction far darker and more terrifying than anything even vaguely threatened by the coronavirus, of all things (!).  They smiled, simple and courageous—without the least sign of panic.  They are a noble memory of mankind.

They are all dead; and their spirit is flown from this world.

Three days ago, I snapped off and YELLED at an elderly relative.  A month ago, he was terrified that he would die Any Day Now from the frailty and ill health of old age.  Now, he has declared that coronavirus is “The End of the World”—quote-unquote; his words.

There is indeed a high probability that he will now die of coronavirus, given his age and general state of health—that he will now die of coronavirus, instead of dying of whatever scared him a month ago, and two months ago, and six months ago...  That is no excuse for his hysteria, much less for his vocal support of irrational government actions that do not protect him from what is now almost inevitable—but which do actively impair my own short-term and long-term survival, and that of many others.  It is this which destroys the world whilst spectacularly failing to save it.


(I told him that straight, then had a calm and productive discussion with his wife.)

Given the high risk to him, I do want for him to treasure whatever remaining days he may have—without being consumed by obsessive fear.  But that is not under my control.


Sorry, folks.  My apologies.  This is all just a TV show.  Nothing is real:  Reality has ceased to exist; and when it attempts to intrude, it can be wished away.

Ever since death became not a part of life, ever since you were awarded a legal right to safety, ever since humanity became infected by the menticidal virus of the democratic-utilitarian modern mentality, the laws of the universe have changed for the sake of your comfort.  Humans have conquered Nature!  Life is now safe.  And the answer to every danger is, “Government, DO SOMETHING!”

Your ancestors struggled through millennia of wars, plagues, and famines to birth you.  If they could see you now, they would probably regret their efforts.  But it is of no import.  Please tap the icon per your Pavlovian conditioning to obtain the reward of watching the Happily Ever After ending, and enjoy a refreshment from my sponsors (if your local government still allows you to obtain things in stores).

(R) 2020!

$$$ YOUR AD HERE!! €€€

(D) 2020!

Cheers!  My posting rate will probably be low, or at best, even more inconsistent than usual; but I will try to keep up, even kick it up.  See you all on the forum (for now).  Love everybody, and be happy!

Now, close your eyes.  Ignorance is bliss.

nullius is cassandra. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

Man and Technics

“Optimism is cowardice.” — Spengler (writing most of a hundred years ago)

Local rules:  ⚠ STATE OF EMERGENCY!  Moderation will be tyrannical.
11  Economy / Reputation / #28719 “jbreher” is a liar on: March 07, 2020, 11:00:03 PM
Trust summary for jbreher

Trusted feedback

nullius2020-03-06Yet another former “Bitcoin Cash” altcoin shill who upgraded his disinformation to promote the Faketoshi scam.  Deftly weaves together lies, half-truths, and cherry-picked quotes in an attempt to bedazzle the audience.  Don’t fall for it.
gmaxwell2020-03-06Promoting a scammer (CSW) and dishonestly claiming that fringe altcoins are "Bitcoin". I wouldn't trade with a person foolish enough to fall for such tripe, especially in a public way even if they were merely doing so because they're just another victim.
Lauda2019-04-03ReferenceBitcoin Cash shill spreading fake propaganda in order to deceive newcomers. Do not trust a single word written by this user.
Sometimes hope for betterment is wasted.
Some of these feedbacks may have been redone; I am quoting same from yesterday, in pertinent part.

The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?

I will do better than that:  I will briefly demonstrate that you are a liar, generally.  I mean that as a judgment of personal character, not merely of a few actions.

Post #3 on this thread will contain unedited full quotes and archival links from jbreher’s posts that I have deleted from the Project Anastasia thread.  Posts #2, #4, and #5 will be reserved for other metadata.

Local rules:  In the interest of fairness, jbreher shall be accorded the reasonable right to answer in his own defence—without regard to whether he wishes to start telling the truth, or just lie some more.  Others shall be moderated at my sound discretion.  TEChSHARE, “truth or dare”, “savetheFORUM”, et al. shall be deleted on sight (but with archives noted in reserved posts).

The following is overkill, and intentionally so:  I am making an example.  Having done so, I am uninterested in debating this, unless somebody has something new and unexpected to say.

Short Table of Contents

A brief review of jbreher’s perpetual lies over the years

I have no desire exhaustively to document jbreher’s post history.  All of the following was found by me in about ten minutes of searching.  It will suffice to show that he is a liar.

Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin.

I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.
Why ?
I ask with no snark or ill-intention.
Because it is purely and simply Bitcoin. In the form that I believe Satoshi intended.

Simple, characterizing Btrash as “Bitcoin” is purely a lie.  And it is the type of lie for which I have been issuing negative trust feedback since I was a Jr. Member.  theymos has not only approved, but even positively suggested this use of the trust system:

If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.

Elsewhere on the same thread as that theymos statement:

User: jbreher

Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin. Shitcoins be shitcoins. Not too hard, is it?

If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I fully agree.

So Bitcoin Cash is not alt coin.
It is a scam altcoin.

One of my Newbie posts—my fourth post; check my post history!—made when I had been actively posting for less than 36 hours:
So-called “Bitcoin Cash” is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash.  It and its ilk are also generically different from honest altcoins, which at least have the decency to make their own names.  I don’t even know what to properly call it—other than a scam, of course; and anybody who does not realize it’s a scam must be one or more of ill-informed, malicious, or incurably stupid.


I hope that helps.  As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion.  Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN.  Any better ideas?  “We’re-not-engineers-don’t-know-much-about-scaling-and-don’t-care-Coin” is too long.


...I urge you to pray to “Bitcoin Jesus”.  Verily, he lied for your sins.  His mark rose heavenward on the pump; then a spear pierced His market’s side for the dump.  Be ye a sick, BOOST ye He shall.  Render unto Caesar Satoshi the things that are Satoshi’s, and unto God Jihan the things that are Jihan’s.  Behold the Good News of His centralized Glory; for His alone are Wholly Profits!

(No wonder I love the cat.)

More of same and similar:

Bitcoin Cash _is_ Bitcoin. It's history extends unbroken back the the genesis block.

BCH seems to strive for continuous innovation at the protocol layer.

SV seems to strive for stabilizing the protocol at a state that already handles all meaningful use cases.

Subject: Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision
Merited by Bitcoin SV (1)
Please help your fellow BSV-er (wrighter? what do you call yourselves?):

BSV-er is fine for me. Wrighter, OTOH, I'm not answering to.

jbreher is an anti-Segwit disinformationist

We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.

No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.

which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.

i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year?

If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.

For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx. This ability of miners to claim what some think as funds that many erroneously believe to be sent to specific parties as funds that the miners can pocket themselves was newly introduced into Bitcoin by the ill-considered so-called 'soft fork' employed for activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. No matter what some arbitrarily-large cabal of miners were able to do previously, they were utterly unable to claim coins of others to themselves. This power is the direct and sole result of the segwit soft fork.

Boldface and italics are in the original:
BCH's desirability is predicated upon the fact that it does not contain the segwit virus -- especially as enacted through the so-called 'soft fork' trojan horse mechanism, which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.

I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter.

You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.

Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?

Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.

You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.

So, the nodes run by users and HODLers of Bitcoin all collectively have “fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority”?

I have publicly stated that my life savings are in Bitcoin.  To be clear, my life savings are in Segwit UTXOs.  Why am I unconcerned about jbreher’s fearmongering, which is essentially a rehash of the lies peddled by jonald_fyookball, et al. around the time of the BCH fork?  Because:

Merited by Foxpup (7), gmaxwell (3), achow101 (3), malevolent (2), AGD (2), paxmao (2), HeRetiK (1), CASlO (1), Manfred Macx (1)
Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”.  They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW.  A miner (or 51+% of miners) who produced invalid blocks would only be wasting hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of IP addresses.  It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random.  An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.


Segwit transactions require signatures, just like old-style transactions.  Segwit transactions have security greater than or equal to old-style transactions in each and every characteristic.  If a miner could somehow steal Segwit funds with a 51% attack, then the same attack could be used against all bitcoins, including Satoshi’s coins.  But such an attack is impossible; the whole idea is ridiculous, just nonsense peddled by Btrash supporters...

I encourage Newbies and non-experts to read that post in full.  I thereby did my best to distill to more accessible terms the essence of a deeply technical argument.  The anti-Segwit disinformationists have done a bang-up job of leveraging technical half-truths to build total lies that cannot be easily understood as such, without technical expertise.

Indeed, the anti-Segwit agitprop is so pernicious that at first, it confused even me.  I was worried.  That is why I studied the issue:  I conceptually discarded all of my pre-existing knowledge of Bitcoin, all of my premises and prejudices, and did, ab initio, a review of Bitcoin’s design (both in theory, and in practice as empirically observed), a careful reading of BIP 141 and other technical documents, a little peek at the Core sources and bitcoin-dev/Github issue discussions, plus open-minded lurking in the debates on this forum, on Reddit, on blogs...  Thereupon, I concluded that the anti-Segwit “Segwit is a security vulnerability!!” claims are not only technically incorrect, but so twisted as cannot reasonably occur other than through deliberate malice.  I hate it when people despicable cretins lie to me.

The purpose of being open-minded is to discover the truth, not to entertain falsehoods.

A brief review of jbreher’s dishonesty on the Project Anastasia thread

Project Anastasia is important to the community—as the community itself has shown by volunteering volunteering translations to seven other languages (and counting), plus awarding its OP 6.6% of merits that I have yet earned (91/1380, as of this writing).  I feel a duty to the community, to Satoshi Nakamoto, and to the memory of Grand Duchess Anastasia to maintain the standards of discussion, and to prevent the diversion thereof into the types of irrelevant flamewars that Craig Wright’s followers use to distract the public from the real issues.

Project Anastasia OP:
Moderation note:  Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood.  And I am in a bad mood.  Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi.  Thank you.

Wherefore Anastasia:
I hereby have sincerely expressed my high respect for each of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, whom I am proud to memorialize by her proper title in OP, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the ingenious founder of Bitcoin.  I have also imposed on this thread a moderation rule requiring that replies must “be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi”.  That is what I call a “win-win”, insofar as it is the intersection of the stories of two famous historical personages whom I remember for different reasons.


Of course, the respective circumstances of these two persons are very different and not comparable.  However, Anastasia was royalty; and I do not think she would have objected to the wisdom of applying her own story to teach lessons for the greater good, as the names of the most famous royalty have always been spun into fables long after their deaths. [...]

Again, I need not exhaustively document each and every instance of jbreher’s falsity:  I will pick only a few such instances as exemplary.
The danger is that ... he can destabilize the market by making his claims to people who never used Bitcoin at all

You seem driven by illogical emotion.

I already addressed that.  jbreher quote-mined the first eight-plus pages of the Anastasia thread, and cast me in a false light whilst deliberately omitting the posts where I explained why I use emotional arguments to accompany facts and logic.  That is dishonest.

How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.

Classic misdirection.  jbreher doesn’t seem that stupid, so he must be playing stupid.

Lies in the mainstream media obviously have both primary (direct) and secondary (indirct) effects on the Bitcoin market.  In the small, that can decrease Bitcoin adoption by those “nocoiners” he so dismisses; in the large, it is a direct attack on the Bitcoin Social Phenomenon, i.e. the source of Bitcoin’s real value.  Because savvy traders know this, the effect on “nocoiners” also affects the decision of those who are already market participants.

As I’ve stated before.. it became very obvious to me when he [Faketoshi] told me he built smart contracts in to the chain from day 1, a direct contradiction to satoshi himself in this thread (  Though Satoshi does not mention smart contacts by name., Nick Szabo stated to me that’s exactly what he believes Satoshi ( or maybe himself) was referring to.

Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts?

Absurd twisting of what ChiBitCTy said:  jbreher turned it to the exact opposite of what he obviously meant.  This is the referenced Satoshi post, in pertinent part:

Here's an outline of the kind of escrow transaction that's possible in software.  This is not implemented and I probably won't have time to implement it soon, but just to let you know what's possible.

Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,

For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.

Dishonest misdirection.

It is technically difficult to produce positive evidence of a negative.  jbreher is misapplying that technical difficulty to confuse people into believing that a negative cannot be proved at all.  And he backs that with a catchphrase that most people do not properly understand.  “Circumstantial evidence” is not necessarily weak evidence:  It is perfectly possible (and does occasionally happen) that somebody can be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence, if the circumstantial evidence is exceptionally strong.  I note this for the sake of argument, without accepting the mischaracterization of the evidence against Wright as “circumstantial”.

Craig Wright is a scammer with a long history of scamming, which all goes to character and the credibility of his claims.  As to Bitcoin specifically, he has been caught in numerous lies that are easily proved false.  His personality, his behaviour, and his openly stated agenda all flatly contradict everything that is known about Satoshi Nakamoto.  And most importantly, at the threshold, he does not provide the first key piece of evidence that any cryptography expert would use to verify his identity:  A digital signature that is verifiable with a public key long known to be associated with that identity!

Overall, the evidence is sufficiently strong for me to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.  (Unreasonable doubts are just that.)  By minimizing that evidence, you dishonestly advance an agenda that I explained at length:

Merited by mindrust (5), Lauda (3), vapourminer (1), Last of the V8s (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)
Craig Wright does not need for a majority of people to believe him:  He needs only for a hard core of shills and fanatics to believe him, whilst the majority wavers.


In the current context:  If Craig Wright can play the mass-media to introduce doubt into the minds of most people who have heard of Bitcoin, and if he is shilled to the hilt by a cadre of hv_ types, and if the only significant opposition is a bunch of forum theorists who won’t push the issue as hard as hv_ does, then Faketoshi will win.

A compounding factor is the distaste that many Bitcoiners have for drama, hostility, and especially, emotionalist arguments and ad hominem attacks.  It is good to have a culture that values logical arguments—but do not confuse critical thinking skills for efficacy at persuasive argument.  If Craig Wright wields false persuasive arguments against your facts and logic, then he will win the hearts and minds of the majority, whose critical thinking skills are negligible.  As I have said before:  Don’t bring a sword to a gunfight.

On this forum and in other venues, others have spent years debunking Faketoshi’s lies point-by-point.  That is not hereby my objective; and indeed, it is more or less off-topic in the Anastasia thread (other than providing links to such thorough debunkings, which are welcome).

Merited by gmaxwell (1), o_e_l_e_o (1)
Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.

It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point.  But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else.  Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooled—and, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!

I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wright’s hands—see above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.

aoluain is correct:  In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:

Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....

and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"

That last bit is, “Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.”

Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.

More dishonest disinformation and misdirection.  Craig Wright did not actually verify anything to Gavin Andresen:  What he did was a stage-magician’s act in lieu of providing a verifiable signature.  That, indeed, is why Gavin cannot provide any evidence thereof to others.

And that is my whole point.  If I were to endorse a similar sleight of hand, then either I must be technically inept (and thus, everybody who ever endorsed my competence must be stupid), or I must be a liar.  The context of this discussion:

Merited by Last of the V8s (1), xtraelv (1)
The Same Standard Applies to Me

Let’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture.  And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.

Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:

achow1012018-02-13Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics.

If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities:  Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.

What would Occam say about that?  —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?

jbreher supports franky1’s defamation of Dr. Adam Back

(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS)
the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo..

Yeah, right:  Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash.  A perfect “mirror”, that!

Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect.

edit: found it:

Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.

Assuming that the screenshot is authentic, so what?  Dr. Back does not thereby claim to have invented Bitcoin—let alone to be Satoshi Nakamoto!  The quoted characterization that “bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control” may be a bit arrogant; but it is clearly intended to be hyperbolic, it is not dishonest, and most importantly, it is not a claim to have invented Bitcoin.  Moreover, Dr. Back is at the forefront of his field; he has a right to be a bit arrogant, especially in a context where he was so close yet so far:  He was the one who almost had the world-shaking, history-changing idea.  Well, that is what makes the difference between creating an intellectual curiosity with interesting potential applications, and creating Bitcoin.  With all due respect to Dr. Back, whom I have admired for over twenty years, that “almost” must hurt more than a bit. ;-)

To draw a false equivalence between Dr. Back and Faketoshi is reprehensible:

ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror

Craig WrightDr. Adam Back
Claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto.Claims to be Dr. Adam Back.
Is a grand-scale identity thief.Is, in fact, Dr. Adam Back.
Claims to have invented Bitcoin.Claims to have invented Hashcash.
Did not invent Bitcoin.Did actually invent Hashcash.
Lies.Makes factually correct statements,
indulges in some hyperbole,
and brags a bit.

“Mirror”?  jbreher, you are a liar for supporting franky1’s false and defamatory smear of the inventor of Hashcash.

Credit where due:  Hashcash was an important invention.  It is the keystone in the Byzantine fault-tolerant mining archway that supports Satoshi’s much greater Bitcoin edifice.  Most great works are built as such:  Satoshi took material provided by those who came before him, Dr. Back inter alia, and assembled it according to his own design, together with his own original innovations.  It is for this reason that Satoshi properly cited Dr. Back in the original Bitcoin paper.
12  Economy / Scam Accusations / IOTA: Snake oil insecurity with a centralized kill switch to shut off your money on: February 19, 2020, 03:29:03 PM
It is high time—no, long past time to better warn people about the billion-dollar scam with a centralized kill switch.  Please support:

From Coindesk, with my red boldface added:

Quote from: Coindesk
IOTA Foundation Suspends Network, Probes Fund Theft in Trinity Wallet

Feb 13, 2020 at 23:22 UTC
Updated Feb 14, 2020 at 15:14 UTC

IOTA Foundation, the nonprofit behind the IOTA distributed network, recommended users close their Trinity wallets Thursday after multiple reports of fund theft.

IOTA said it started receiving the reports Wednesday and decided to shut off the Coordinator node in the network for further investigation.


On Twitter, IOTA said it is working with law enforcement and cybersecurity experts to investigate a coordinated attack that resulted in stolen funds.

Dominik Schiener, co-founder of the IOTA Foundation, did not respond to request for comments before the press time. CoinDesk will add updates as the story develops.

(Note:  This theft followed by IOTA hitting the kill switch happened only a few months after IOTA mainnet had 15 hours of “downtime” caused by a “corrupt ledger state”...  Wait, what the hell kind of cryptocurrency has network-wide “downtime”?  Bitcoin has no “downtime”, and certainly no “corrupt ledger state”.)

What bad news this is for a network that people are entrusting with their money:

  • The minor point:  One way or another, some people got their money stolen due to IOTA’s snake oil “security”.
  • The major point:  IOTA has a kill switch!  They can and do “pause” or “suspend” the whole network, via the peremptory fiat of someone who can turn off your money with the push of a button.  Just like flipping a light switch.  I actually do not even know of any other cryptocurrency, even horribly centralized ones, that can be shut down so easily as “[pausing] the Coordinator”.

Now, compare this fiasco and other known problems with IOTA to the dishonest claims in OP of IOTA’s announcement thread (current snapshot):

Iota’s blockchain solves the following problems of its blockchain cousin:

Centralization of control
As history shows, small miners form big groups to reduce variation of the reward. This leads to concentration of power (computational and political) in hands of few pool operators and gives them ability to apply wide spectrum of policies (filtering, postponing) on certain transactions. Although there are no known cases where pool operators abused their power, there have been several instances where the opportunity were present. This possibility in a monetary system powering a multibillion (in USD) industry is completely unacceptable.

“Obsolete” cryptography
Although large scale quantum computers do not exist yet, future oriented companies have already begun initiating the steps towards quantum-resistant cryptography. From a security point of view it makes perfect sense to assume that hardware capable of cracking classical cryptoalgorithms may appear in the very near future, so preparation is the only defense.

Let me get this straight:  IOTA avoids “centralization of control” by having a centralized kill switch which can turn off your money at any time—and they use that kill switch when theft occurs because their way to avoid “‘obsolete’ cryptography” is to sell you a bug-ridden heap of snake oil that has had its homebrew crypto broken in the past, and apparently is overall insecure and buggy (whether or not this latest theft was caused by a break of their crypto).


Because I am a techie, let me put this in terms of something that looks like maths and stuff:

IOTA = your money → 🗑️

The current IOTA disaster shows that honest technical experts on this forum, including myself, were justified long ago in giving a roundhouse kick to IOTA’s snake oil security.

What do I mean by “snake oil”?  Everybody who knows anything about practical cryptography knows well these warning signs:
Quote from: Bruce Schneier (CRYPTO-GRAM)
Snake Oil

The problem with bad security is that it looks just like good security. You can't tell the difference by looking at the finished product....

The term we use for bad cryptography products is "snake oil," which was the turn-of-the-century American term for quack medicine. It brings to mind traveling medicine shows, and hawkers selling their special magic elixir that would cure any ailment you could imagine.


Elsewhere I've talked about building strong security products, using tried-and-true mathematics, and generally being conservative. Here I want to talk about some of the common snake-oil warning signs, and how you can pre-judge products from their advertising claims. These warning signs are not foolproof, but they're pretty good.

Warning Sign #1: Pseudo-mathematical gobbledygook.

In the quote above, notice the "unique in-house developed incremental base shift algorithm." Does anyone have any idea what that means? Are there any academic papers that discuss this concept? Long noun chains don't automatically imply security.


Warning Sign #2: New mathematics.

Every couple of years, some mathematician looks over at cryptography, says something like, "oh, that's easy," and proceeds to create an encryption algorithm out of whatever he has been working on. Invariably it is lousy.


Warning Sign #3: Proprietary cryptography.

I promise not to start another tirade about the problems of proprietary cryptography. I just include it here as a warning sign.


Warning Sign #4: Extreme cluelessness.

Some companies make such weird claims that it's obvious that they don't understand the field.


Warning Sign #7: Unsubstantiated claims.


Other companies make claims about other algorithms that are "broken," without giving details. Or that public-key cryptography is useless. Don't believe any of this stuff. If the claim seems far-fetched, it probably is.


I can stop at 5 of Schneier’s “warning signs” without proceeding further, methinks.

I am not only calling IOTA insecure now.  See what I said two years ago in a discussion with some of the smartest people in the Development & Technology forum, after IOTA’s homebrew hash was cracked.  All emphasis and boldface are hereby quoted as in my original posts.

Merited by achow101 (2), LoyceV (1)
The recent (and a really good) example of bad code here:

Dom, David and the rest of the IOTA team,
We have found serious cryptographic weaknesses in the cryptographic hash function
curl used by IOTA, curl. These weaknesses threaten the security of signatures
and PoW in IOTA as PoW and Signatures rely on curl to be pseudo random and collision

This is not “bad code”.  It is DIY crypto.  Worse, DIY crypto for a primitive—a DIY hash!  Worse still, DIY crypto by a corporate outfit which never showed any evidence of being inhabited by world-class cryptographers—despite their claim in a spin-job piece that “the IOTA Foundation has already subcontracted a team of 5 world-class cryptographers, as well as 3 independent ones to come up with a final design of Curl and then start the long peer-reviewed process, as was always the plan.”  N.b. that even world-class cryptographers need their primitive designs to undergo extensive peer review before fielding them with Other People’s Money—whether it’s the “final design”, or otherwise!

One of the people who broke IOTA had some damning words for it, in “Cryptographic vulnerabilities in IOTA”:

Quote from: Neha Narula (2017-09-07)
You might think that IOTA, a cryptocurrency worth over a billion dollars, and working with organizations like Microsoft, University College London, Innogy, and Bosch, BNY Mellon, Cisco, and Foxconn (through the Trusted IOT Alliance) would not have fairly obvious vulnerabilities, but unfortunately, that’s not the case. When we took a look at their system, we found a serious vulnerability and textbook insecure code.

“In 2017, leaving your crypto algorithm vulnerable to differential cryptanalysis is a rookie mistake. It says that no one of any calibre analyzed their system, and that the odds that their fix makes the system secure is low,” states Bruce Schneier, renowned security technologist, about IOTA when we shared our attack.

Anybody who buys into such ill-conceived crypto-junk as IOTA deserves to lose their money, on grounds of foolishness.

Merited by TMAN (10), achow101 (2), LoyceV (1)
Bitcoin requires a new mindset.  [...]  If you get that, then you will pay careful attention to the quality of your code.  Also, you will much respect Core—because they get it, too.  And if you dare to make your own currency, you will not start by designing your own hash function as IOTA did!  That really wrecks any credibility they ever had.

I don't know precisely what happened with IOTA but I have read a little bit about it and I'm not sure why the currency continues to circulate given what I do know.  I guess too many people had invested into it by that point, which is more a political reason for continuing to exist rather than anything based on technical merit or the capability of the system.  I'm not sure why the IOTA people thought it was a good idea to throw in some untested cryptography, but that seems like a very amateur thing to do.

As for the latter bolded part:  I don’t see “amateur”.  I see PHB + NIH.

Come on.  We’re the big boys.  Microsoft is involved—you know, the company which does \ instead of / as a directory delimiter.  For our billion-dollar cryptocurrency, we will do innovation!  We don’t just use a commercial off-the-shelf hash which everybody else has.  We have our own hash!  The boss says so.

I hereby partly retract one statement that I made in the above quotes:

Anybody who buys into such ill-conceived crypto-junk as IOTA deserves to lose their money, on grounds of foolishness.

The word “deserves” was rhetorical hyperbole.  Newbies and people who are not technical experts do not deserve to lose money on a billion-dollar scam, which they lack adequate knowledge properly to evaluate.  Wherefore my new action against IOTA:  People deserve to be warned, so that they do not unknowingly take the high risk of losing money that comes with investing in a “cryptocurrency” that uses snake oil crypto, has suffered thefts (due to apparently as-yet undisclosed insecurities), and has actually had its whole network shut down with a centralized kill switch.  IOTA is a broken-by-design financial time bomb!

Disclosures:  I have no financial position which could be in any way directly affected by IOTA’s market price.  Indeed, I flatly ignore >99% of the altcoin market.  IOTA just keeps coming to my attention as a disaster by design.  In 2018, it was their broken homebrew hash; now, it is their kill switch...  I want to warn others so that people don’t take a high risk of losing money by buying into a billion-dollar scam with snazzy marketing, big corporate backers, and abysmally insecure technology.
13  Other / Beginners & Help / A hands-on lesson on why you should check PGP fingerprints! on: February 14, 2020, 11:58:09 PM
Why did I just write a long post in Meta advocating the import of PGP fingerprints?

Loading image of funny comic...
XKCD #1181

This was created today.  It could have said anything that I wanted it to:

Hash: SHA1

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.


Satoshi Nakamoto <>



Verify it!

$ gpg --import faketoshi_key.asc
$ gpg --verify faketoshi_message.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri 14 Feb 2020 11:03:21 PM UTC
gpg:                using DSA key B96194D3FD955B88522B056F36DBC0388B749C8B
gpg: Good signature from "Satoshi Nakamoto <>" [unknown]
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: B961 94D3 FD95 5B88 522B  056F 36DB C038 8B74 9C8B

Here is “Satoshi’s” key:



And how?  Trivial.

$ cat faketoshi.conf
cert-digest-algo SHA1
default-preference-list AES256 AES192 AES128 CAST5 3DES SHA1 SHA256 RIPEMD160 ZLIB BZIP2 ZIP
$ gpg --faked-system-time "1225390759!" --options faketoshi.conf --expert --full-gen-key

gpg: WARNING: running with faked system time: 2008-10-30 18:19:19
Please select what kind of key you want:
   (1) RSA and RSA (default)
   (2) DSA and Elgamal
   (3) DSA (sign only)
   (4) RSA (sign only)
   (7) DSA (set your own capabilities)
   (8) RSA (set your own capabilities)
   (9) ECC and ECC
  (10) ECC (sign only)
  (11) ECC (set your own capabilities)
Your selection? 2
DSA keys may be between 768 and 3072 bits long.
What keysize do you want? (2048) 1024
Requested keysize is 1024 bits
ELG keys may be between 1024 and 4096 bits long.
What keysize do you want for the subkey? (3072) 2048
Requested keysize is 2048 bits
Please specify how long the key should be valid.
         0 = key does not expire
      <n>  = key expires in n days
      <n>w = key expires in n weeks
      <n>m = key expires in n months
      <n>y = key expires in n years
Key is valid for? (0)
Key does not expire at all
Is this correct? (y/N) y

GnuPG needs to construct a user ID to identify your key.

Real name: Satoshi Nakamoto
Email address:
You selected this USER-ID:
    "Satoshi Nakamoto <>"

Change (N)ame, (C)omment, (E)mail or (O)kay/(Q)uit? o
We need to generate a lot of random bytes. It is a good idea to perform
some other action (type on the keyboard, move the mouse, utilize the
disks) during the prime generation; this gives the random number
generator a better chance to gain enough entropy.
We need to generate a lot of random bytes. It is a good idea to perform
some other action (type on the keyboard, move the mouse, utilize the
disks) during the prime generation; this gives the random number
generator a better chance to gain enough entropy.
gpg: key 36DBC0388B749C8B marked as ultimately trusted
gpg: revocation certificate stored as '/home/user/.gnupg/openpgp-revocs.d/B96194D3FD955B88522B056F36DBC0388B749C8B.rev'
public and secret key created and signed.

pub   dsa1024 2008-10-30 [SC]
uid                      Satoshi Nakamoto <>
sub   elg2048 2008-10-30 [E]

$ gpg -a -o faketoshi_key.asc --export 0x8B749C8B
$ nvi faketoshi_message.txt
$ gpg --options faketoshi.conf -u 0x8B749C8B --clearsign < faketoshi_message.txt > faketoshi_message.asc

Now, observe that most of my focus here is on authentication of an identity, and not simply on providing a means of contact.  A comparison of the communications security of PGP to that of ICQ, AIM, and MSN Messenger would be laughable.  Placing a PGP fingerprint in one’s profile is a statement of cryptographically strong identifying information, not merely a bit of contact info.  That, indeed, is why I have kludged my PGP key fingerprint into my profile and displayed it in my forum signature, ever since I started actively posting.  I am 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C; 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C is me; and if you want to authenticate my identity, I explicitly request that you verify digital signatures rooted in 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C.

Merited by nullius (10)
Kek, only one interesting thing: i can't find any pgp signature or bitcoin signature from nullius after his return (since 2nd January).

His pgp keys is well known -

Are you sure this is real nullius?

Hash: SHA512

PSA: *Always* verify digital signatures.

If somebody claims to be me, and he refuses produce
a fresh signed statement signed with a key certified by
0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C (whether as a subkey,
or through proper rollover(s) to a new master key), then you must
conclusively presume that he is an imposter and an *identity thief*.


nullius (2020-02-14)

In homage to Grand Duchess Anastasia and Satoshi Nakamoto:



Control of a forum account is not cryptographic evidence of identity.  Control of an e-mail address is also not cryptographic evidence of identity.  With my large boldface supplied:

Topic: is compromised
Today I received an email from (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps expired and then someone else registered it.

Don't trust any email sent from unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)

I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another post.)

* nullius asks, “But what is Satoshi’s PGP key fingerprint?  If I download that key from your link, how do I know it is the same key that Satoshi used before?”

The email said:
Quote from:
Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.

Not exactly Satoshi's normal style. Wink

* nullius asks, “The key that I just downloaded from your link lacks any Web of Trust signatures.  Anyway, suppose that I don’t already have verified keys from anyone who knew Satoshi.  What then?  Does this look right to you?”

$ gpg Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
gpg: WARNING: no command supplied.  Trying to guess what you mean ...
pub   dsa1024 2008-10-30 [SC]
uid           Satoshi Nakamoto <>
sub   elg2048 2008-10-30 [E]


With a tiny programming effort, I could even more closely fake a “Satoshi” key.  With that plus a few CPU cycles, I could fake the 32-bit “short” keyid; with computational work on the order of what the Bitcoin mining network does in one-half second, I could even fake the 64-bit “long” keyid.  But I could not fake the full fingerprint!

Stop identity theft using the power of public-key cryptography!

Cut off imposters at the threshold.

Always make sure that you have the right key.  Check PGP fingerprints!

Local rules:  Trolling, Faketoshi shilling, and replies to such things will be deleted at my exclusive discretion.  DNFTT.  Bad technical advice may also be deleted, unless it makes for a good opportunity to correct common misconceptions.  Posts doing the latter are encouraged.

Posts which quote the whole OP will be deleted on sight.  Insubstantive posts, “me too” posts, etc. will also be deleted, even if well-meaning.  Please be considerate of readers.

Newbie-level smart questions are welcome.  Newbie-level discussion by technical experts is very welcome.

Please keep technical discussion at a level appropriate for the Beginners & Help forum.  Further explanations are welcome, e.g. as to why I used the options that I put into faketoshi.conf.  Most of all, I welcome good advice about how to verify PGP key fingerprints in a non-ideal world—where not every key is in the Web of Trust, and not every newbie has even a verified starting point in the Web of Trust.

I will reserve a post for downlinking the best posts on this thread, for linking to translations, and for other metadata.
14  Other / Off-topic / Nietzsche on: January 27, 2020, 11:41:22 AM
A lightly edited quote from recent private communications about exemplars of the morality of resentment:

Quote from: nullius
Oh, you would love Jenseits von Gut und Böse [‘Beyond Good and Evil’]!

Having started his preface with the question, “Vorausgesetzt, dass die Wahrheit ein Weib est —, wie?” [‘Supposing that Truth is a woman—what then?’], Nietzsche then proceeds to casually scorn his woman:  “Die Falschheit eines Urtheils ist uns noch kein Einwand gegen ein Urtheil...  Die Unwahrheit als Lebensbedingung zugestehn” (Aphorism 4 [intentionally untranslated as a filter to exclude casual readers of this topic, for the reason stated in the next sentence:]).  It is an eminently misquotable book in the grubby hands of such Chandalas* as Vispilio!

He then proceeds to contemptuously dismiss all his woman’s other suitors:  He demolishes philosophy as such!  For Nietzsche was a philologist, not actually a philosopher.  Thus with the ease of a warrior amongst midgets, he sends away 2500 years of suitors who pursued Truth:  Plato, Kant, Spinoza, wrong—the Stoics are “fraudulent”—sensualism is for the plebes—etc...  Even Schopenhauer, whom a younger Nietzsche once regarded with awe, he now dismisses as “superstition”.  Fräulein Wahrheit now has no suitors left but the man who just hit on Unwahrheit right in front of her.

Thence begins a dance in which she yields to his embrace.

(* Under the Hindu caste system, the Chandalas are the lowest of the low untouchables, filthy and vile by birth—in some eras required by law to carry rattles and shake them upon the approach of “living” persons, so that those of pure caste could avoid the contamination of their presence.  Historically, a type of BM/WF mixed offspring.  In some of his books, Nietzsche uses “Chandala” approximately as Bitcoin Forum members use “pajeet”:  To describe any creature of infinite stupidity, who combines within himself “Please Sir” servility with seething jealousy toward anybody who is capable of higher achievements.)

The foregoing is merely the application of a principle which grade-α philologist Nietzsche had laid when he wooed Truth’s virgin sister, Wisdom, in his previous book, Also sprach Zarathustra:

Quote from: Nietzsche
Muthig, unbekümmert, spöttisch, gewaltthätig — so will uns die Weisheit: sie ist ein Weib und liebt immer nur einen Kriegsmann.

[‘Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.’]

Athena Pallas: Virgin goddess of War and Wisdom
Nietzsche:  She and her sister Truth have rejected the advances of the philosophers philosophasters.

Photo: Jürgen Howaldt

The great truths of this world are oft concealed in the twisting of language.  A warrior-philologist is armed with the sword to slice through this Gordian knot; and in the famous Beyond Good and Evil aphorism that later gave the starting point for his Zur Genealogie der Moral, Nietzsche discovered two separate moral dichotomies:

  • The dichotomy between “good” and “bad” (“gut” and “schlecht”) in the sense of “noble” versus “despicable”; this, he termed the Master-Morality (Herren-Moral), which he exemplified in the self-glorifying pride of ancient aristocrats:  “ is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful.  ‘We truthful ones’ [‘Wir Wahrhaftigen’] the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves.”  I observe that whereas the Homeric heroes may merrily invade Troy, seize its treasures and women, and burn it to the ground, they would never scam you.  Scamming would be despicable, schlecht, bad.  (Cf. Zur Genealogie der Moral, pp. 21–22.)
  • The dichotomy between “good” and “evil” (“gut” and “böse”) in the sense of “sympathetic” versus “dangerous”, which he termed the Slave-Morality (Sklaven-Moral).  It is the morality of resentment by persons of inferior quality, by which they demand that those stronger than themselves must abandon their strength for humility.  In Bitcoin Forum terms, it is the morality of those who demand empathy for “please Sir give merits or my whole family will starve to death” types—or those who are so enraged about being denied “lucrative bounties” that they develop paranoid ideations about a “DT Chipmixer mafia”.

He further observes that “good” in the Master-Morality is “evil” in the Slave-Morality, and “good” in the Slave-Morality is “bad” in the Master-Morality (e.g., liberals and Christians).  In my own words, the former is a morality of pride, and the latter is a morality of utility:  A morality of ability serving needs, thus that “the meek shall inherit the earth”.

In this and other ways, Nietzsche steps Beyond Good and Evil to reach “good and bad”.  Notwithstanding his amoralism, he actually embraces “Master-Morality” values which are not only far harsher than the moralities that he rejects, but also impossible to learn.  The “Master-Morality” is a morality that one is, and a self-glorification of what one is:  It is not an externally imposed rule, and cannot be taught by moralistic instruction in the manner of a Sunday-school teacher wagging a finger.

“Wir Wahrhaftigen” need neither commandments nor laws to tell us not to lie, cheat, and steal!  Either you are born with the instinct that underlies such traditions as seppuku—or you aren’t, and you need laws, gods, moralistic teachings, negative trust feedback, and the deterrent effect of punishment to scare you into some approximate semblence of honest behaviour.

Thus, unlike Bitcoin, Nietzsche is not for everybody.  Indeed, Nietzsche is for the few.

For those who may mistake Nietzsche’s amoralism as a license to commit crimes, the moralist Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov character in Crime and Punishment is an adequate warning.  Nietzsche is not for the likes of them, and neither is this topic—whereas Dostoyevsky is not for me!

Neither is Nietzsche for those may mistake his word as a revelation of prophecy; for Nietzsche was a freethinker:

Quote from: Nietzsche
I now go alone, my disciples!  Ye also now go away, and alone!  So will I have it.

Verily, I advise you: depart from me, and guard yourselves against Zarathustra!  And better still: be ashamed of him!  Perhaps he hath deceived you.

The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends.

One requiteth a teacher badly if one remain merely a scholar.  And why will ye not pluck at my wreath?

Ye venerate me; but what if your veneration should some day collapse?  Take heed lest a statue crush you!

Ye say, ye believe in Zarathustra?  But of what account is Zarathustra!  Ye are my believers: but of what account are all believers!

...thus spake Zarathustra.

Given that I am not a Nietzschean, and I hate my friend Nietzsche in the same sense that Nietzsche hated Schopenhauer, I have no wish to now write an extended discourse on Nietzsche.  At this time, I will thus retire to let others discuss, pursuant to the below-stated rules.

Friend of Catbats

Local rules:  Any post that quotes the whole OP will be deleted.  I may also delete posts that are stupid, including (but not limited to) those that are stupid in the sense that the philologist amongst philosophers observed, “according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in any case be the safe man: he is good-natured, easily deceived, perhaps a little stupid, un bonhomme.  Everywhere that slave-morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words ‘good’ and ‘stupid.’”  Also, in honour of “Wir Wahrhaftigen”, I will delete lies; and Vispilio and his cronies are prohibited from posting in this thread.

Please do not reply to any post which violates the above rules.
15  Economy / Reputation / yahoo62278 and Yobit on: January 23, 2020, 08:50:00 PM
In several recent posts, I have vaguely alluded to quiet, behind-the-scenes preparations that I was making to take on the Yobit scam.  My planning was preempted by such public outrage as has been brewing for months, but only broke forth with force within the past 24 hours.

For my part, I am sick of seeing the Yobit scam-company not only advertised, but inexplicably advertised by many decent, otherwise respectable posters.  This last is a significant problem for the health of the forum, insofar as it gives the Yobit ads more credibility than garden-variety sigspam.  And I know that I am not the only one who wants to stop this!

But my planning on this point ran into a significant problem.

Whilst catching up and researching the topic, I noticed that yahoo62278 is currently wearing a Yobit ad.  On the basis of mere common sense, I doubt that that is for the principal purpose of receiving direct payment for the ad; that would be relative chump change for someone whom I reasonably infer must have a long-term business relationship with Yobit.

yahoo62278’s own profile “Yobit Yodollars” signature has the effect of making it wrongly socially acceptable to advertise a scam site; and as a practical matter, others wearing Yobit ads now cannot be tagged without, in fairness, also tagging yahoo62278, plus potentially ~excluding him to help support a mass-tagging action.

I have no quarrel with yahoo, and I don’t want one.  However, the Yobit scam advertising must be stopped one way or another; and whereas I recently said that Yobit advertisers will make their own choices and bear their own consequences, yahoo62278 cannot expect special treatment.  Indeed, such a highly respected forum member must be held to the highest standards.

yahoo62278’s general dealings with Yobit, and the impact thereof on this forum, may present further issues.  I will simply start with the foregoing.

Note:  Archive sites are misbehaving from where I sit.  I think that my pertinent snapshots will eventually show up; I may thereupon edit this post to add appropriate links, and/or to add other links.  Of course, if I substantively edit this, I will first archive it.

Local rules:  To be moderated in my sound discretion.  I believe that in the foregoing, I have set an appropriate tone for addressing a serious problem involving a widely trusted forum member.
16  Economy / Reputation / ~Vispilio, the Yobit scam defender who will smear your business if you don’t pay on: January 23, 2020, 04:01:54 AM
I have been examining the Yobit scam.  Although I am not yet ready to speak on the topic itself, I observe that it has hit a new low (with brazen-faced boldface in the original):

Nothing to do with retaliation, everything written there is the absolute truth, try it sometime, it might make a man out of you yet marlboroza... Good Luck

Your rating is bullshit. There are no "irrefutable flags" that JollyGood's criticism of Yobit will cause financial damage. You seem to be unable to separate opinion from fact, not a good trait for a DT member.

In principle, it is irrefutable. There is a difference between theory and practice. The full disclosure of malicious intent is sufficient to warrant a negative feedback.

When you think about it, everything is an opinion when it comes to moral judgement.

"There are no moral phenomena, only a moral interpretation of phenomena" (one of the strongest quotes from Beyond Good and Evil)

Based on past observations, I don't expect a petty spiteful manipulator like you to understand the intricacies of ontology, but I hope you can at least use your energies to improve your intellectual faculties a bit for the well being of this forum, as theymos seems to so far have placed an inexplicably high amount of trust in you...

For an education, see the trust feedback with which I tagged #982288 “Vispilio” on 2020-01-23 (archival reference link):

Quote from: nullius
Pseudointellectual poetaster who abuses Nietzsche for the purpose of defending the Yobit scam.  Despicable!  “Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality [MASTER-MORALITY] the antithesis ’good’ and “bad” means practically the same as ‘noble’ and ‘despicable’,—the antithesis ‘good’ and ‘EVIL’ is of a different origin. is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful.  ‘We truthful ones’—the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves.” — Nietzsche, *Beyond Good and Evil*, Aphorism 260.

Do not trust Vispilio’s philosophic opinions.  Also, do not trust the honesty of a Yobit defender.  —Also, ~Vispilio.

Moreover, this time with boldface added, re:



Your Middle Eastern ancestors would spit on your face if they knew you would stoop to dishonorable lies for a few dollars more,
and I promise you I would teach you a lesson that your ancestors would be proud of, if you were to try any of this duplicitous bullshit in person, Mr. DireHyena...


Nothing to do with retaliation, everything written there is the absolute truth, try it sometime, it might make a man out of you yet marlboroza... Good Luck

Please be advised that my rating is of you in yourself, not only of your actions.  For, “It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to MEN; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to ACTIONS...”  (Nietzsche, ibid.)  You have no honour, Vispilio.  You make empty Internet tough-guy threats, the hallmark of a coward.  You quote Nietzsche in the same manner as an unguided youth who just discovered him in an Internet quotebook.  You are not a man.

Now, stop talking down to your betters; stop insulting the manhood of others, if that’s a concept you wish to ever learn about; stop abusing Nietzsche, whose philosophy you are manifestly incapable of comprehending; and stop supporting an infamous scam!
17  Other / Politics & Society / The Anarchy of Authoritarian Autarchy: Be Your Own Authority on: January 21, 2020, 11:02:45 PM
Although I do, strictly speaking, call for anarchy, I explicitly reject the anarchy of the rabble.

Mine is the anarchy of the few, of the natural aristocrats who were not born to be slaves.  It is by individual anarchy that they must escape the tyranny which the mob, with its innate slave-mentality, has freely chosen and voted into existence by the dead weight of numeric majorities.

It is the anarchy of those who love order, and impose order first on themselves:  They who live by honour and not law.  They must become laws unto themselves.

It is the anarchy of amoralists who rise beyond good and evil to shatter the table of values of the mob’s slave-morality, and thus clear the way for their own tables of values.

It is the anarchy of the good who, being good, hold fast to honour out of pride:  For the most sincere morality is the self-glorification of the proud, whose judgments of others honour the best of what they see in themselves.  It is they who would embrace death before the self-negation of dishonour—not as a sacrifice, but as a supreme act of pure selfishness:  Humility is dishonour per se;humiliation is to be dishonourable and dishonoured;—“death before dishonour” is the rule of the self-glorifying morality embodied by one so devoid of humility that he values his pride more than his life.  (And indeed, it is only the humble, the meek, the weak who fear death:  The cowardly.)  For those whose honour is pride and whose pride is self-honour, law is at best superfluous; and the law of the mob must be explicitly rejected.

Wherefore it is “authoritarian autarchy” as to yourself.  Don’t reject authority:  Be your own authority.

Mine is not the anarchy of the petty, the weak-willed, the vicious, the spiteful, the despicable, the criminal, the jealous masses of those who would tear down anything better than themselves to assuage the implicit insult to their own inferiority.

It is not the anarchy of those who simply wish to escape all rules, such that they may do whatever they find most convenient at any particular moment.  It is not the anarchy of a “rebel without a cause”.

Indeed, such a disordered mass-anarchy is unsustainable and self-defeating in practice.  History shows that when the mob is loosed from all bands of authority, it starts with an orgy of mass violent crime.  It then snaps back and demands order, for no greater motive than want of the personal comfort and safety which are impossible for members of an uncontrolled rabble.  The goodness of the outcome is commensurate to the wisdom of whatever systems and systemic leaders may so happen to arise in such a situation.

Because a headless mob makes no wise choices, the mob will tend to embrace whatever system and leadership best appeal to the ego of the small-minded.  This tendency can be actively exploited by wise leaders who obtain power for noble purposes, by pragmatically hacking the stupidity of the masses.  However, the mass-tendency is much more likely to empower those who genuinely best exemplify it.  And in practice, the system with the best mob-appeal is, of course, democracy on the principle of “one sheep, one vote”.  Thereupon do the sheep choose as shepherds those who are most adept at pandering to the masses, playing petty politics, and manipulating majority opinion with cunning propaganda.

As a feature and not a bug, by design, democracy guarantees that the dregs at the bottom will rise to be the scum floating on top.  The new order of tyrants wreathed in democratic platitudes will then proceed to bind the whole world in whatever chains the slave-mentality mob finds most soothing:  Mass-surveillance and militarized police to “keep people safe” from popular bogeys, slave-level taxation for the “economic justice” of “wealth redistribution”, thoughtcrime laws to “stop hate”, terrorist wars to bring the blessings of the same “freedom” to others who don’t want it, and, to the flipside, entertainments which actively, immersively propagandize and surveil the masses throughout all their waking moments.

Am I mistaken?  Look around you!  Look with open eyes, an iron heart, and a freethinking mind which ruthlessly questions all unexamined premises it has been told are categorically unquestionable.

Are so many millions of people, in so many democratic countries around the world, all voting for leaders and policies which they actually don’t want?  Really?  Or do you simply disagree with what they want, and project your own desires onto them through your unexamined assumption that they must be just like you?

If you start with the premise that “all men are created equal”, you thus start by implicitly assuming that your own subjective desires are objectively the lowest common denominator of what all people everywhere must want.  It is a fundamental error.  Mean mediocrities (and worse) do not care about anything other than safety, basic comfort, cheap entertainment, and emotionalist dogmata which they will blindly defend to their deaths.

They do not disagree with your higher principles:  They have no higher principles, and moreover, they lack the mental ability to have higher principles.  They make individual decisions based on herd mentality and the dogmata which they have learned by rote—dogmata ingrained with emotions, and thence defended with the blind passions of the mass-mind.  This is an innate limitation, and an empirically observed reality which cannot be wished away by fantasies about “educating” the ineducable.  Sheep can no more be taught to think than dogs can be taught to sing opera.  Indeed, for the intended readers of this essay (others are hereby irrelevant), sheep can no more be taught to be you than you can be taught to be a mindless sheep; and it is all at once absurd, delusional, and fantastically arrogant to assume that you can remake the masses in your own image.  They are what they are.  Be what you are, even if that means you must renounce the mass-worshipping dogma and become a law unto yourself.

And lo, what a dogma that is!

A dogma may be beneficially descended from a higher principle; but sound higher principles are neither necessary for efficient production of a dogma, nor sufficient to impress it on the mass-mind.  Thus to the mass, “freedom” and “liberty” are but vapid buzzwords which only become important either as an excuse to self-righteously bomb a foreign country into “liberation”, or as cause for self-righteous indignation if you dare to question their “right to an opinion”.  Everybody is entitled to an opinion!  No matter if the opinion is thoughtlessly copied from the opinion-factories of the mainstream media and democratic government propagandists:  The facially absurd notion that everybody is entitled to an opinion is a learned dogma, with the added benefit of appealing to the petty egos of those least capable of independently forming their own opinions.  Wherefore let none dare any heresy against the “one sheep, one vote” principle of governance, a sacred relic that you must worship at the altar of the masses.  Of course, this state of affairs is entirely convenient for the priests of the opinion-factories.

Democracy is not three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner:  It is the flock obediently voting on the shepherd’s opinion of wolves.  Wherefore wolves are an endangered species.

What are you to do, when you are outnumbered, outgunned, and outvoted by numeric majorities who, per Goethe, falsely believe themselves “free” because they are entitled to express the opinions of professional opinion-makers, and thus go beyond Voltaire not only by defending the chains which bind them, but by actively demanding that you must love those chains, too?

Free yourself first from the moral authority of the mob.  You owe nothing to mass opinion; therefore, the laws which rise on mass opinion have no proper authority over you.  You do not consent to be governed by the votes of millions of anthropoid livestock who want to be bound in chains—who eagerly embrace those chains just as long as they remain warm, fed, and adequately entertained.  You are a law unto yourself.

Wherefore “anarchy” as to the masses and their so-called “governments”, which are in truth no more than the largest, most well-armed organized criminal gangs.  Don’t reject authority:  Be your own authority.

My 1000th post.

The foregoing is Part 0.  When further parts are posted, I will edit this with a link downthread.  Forthcoming:  Distiguishing of my analysis from other existing political philosophies; the intersection of this line of thought with crypto-anarchism; and more...

This is my “anarchy” thread.  Moderation will be authoritarian and elitist.
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Bitcoin: The Social Phenomenon on: January 08, 2020, 05:19:48 PM
Translations:  PyccкийRomânăTürkçeHrvatskiBahasa IndonesiaFilipino
(Listed in chronological order of local topic creation.)

Bitcoin is more than a technology:  Bitcoin is a social phenomenon.  And it is the first mass social movement in history that does not propose any opinion other than its own value.

People who disagree with each other about everything else, can agree about Bitcoin.  That is what gives Bitcoin its value:  Everybody wants Bitcoin, no matter what their opinions about anything else!  And that is what makes Bitcoin immune to financial censorship.  There are people from completely opposite ends of the political spectrum who came to Bitcoin, because big banks disliked them, closed their accounts, and shut them out of the fiat financial system.

It’s scary that banks can impose an unwritten law of their own, with no accountability and no appeal, just by closing people’s accounts.  Bitcoin stops that.

I have experience living without a bank account.  It’s very difficult:  You can’t use money normally, and you are shut out of many opportunities.  That can impoverish you, and it can keep you in poverty.  Bitcoin takes away the power of unaccountable corporations to shut down people’s lives on a whim, just because they don’t like them.

You may dislike me, you may disagree with me, you may condemn me—you may even decide that you hate me.  But we both agree that Bitcoin has value; and Bitcoin itself is absolutely unbiased between us.  This is what gives Bitcoin its power—and this is how Bitcoin empowers anybody who wants to use it.  If I decide that I hate you, we still agree on Bitcoin—and we can’t tell each other what to do with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin’s freedom attracted many people.  This gave Bitcoin some value; and in turn, Bitcoin’s value attracted more people, which gave Bitcoin even more value.  Thus, its value comes from its power as a social phenomenon, and not directly from the ingenious technology which enables that social phenomenon.

The Bitcoin technology is easy to duplicate.  But the Bitcoin social movement cannot be duplicated.  It exists because everybody agrees on Bitcoin.  People all over the world, of every race and nationality, of every religion, of every political opinion, all agree on Bitcoin.  Their agreements or disagreements about anything else are irrelevant to Bitcoin.

That is why there is only one Bitcoin.

And that is why people who hate Bitcoin itself try to break it apart.  If there are many Bitcoins, then people don’t agree on Bitcoin anymore:  There is my Bitcoin, and there is your Bitcoin, and there is someone else’s Bitcoin.  That agreement I just described is broken up.  In the long term, if one Bitcoin splits into many Bitcoins, its value will not be divided up:  Its value will be zero, worthless.  Bitcoin has value because everybody agrees on Bitcoin.  If there are many Bitcoins, then none of them has value, because none of them has everybody’s agreement.

Fortunately, Bitcoin is resilient against this type of attack.  I can easily make my own fork of Bitcoin, and declare to the world that this is the new Bitcoin.  You will just laugh at me, and keep using Bitcoin.  It turns out that trying to break up everybody’s agreement is like trying to stop a moving train by stepping in front of it.  People who do that are deliberately excluding themselves from “everybody”.  Their pretend-“Bitcoins” just get crushed and left behind, as everybody keeps using Bitcoin.

That is why most pretend-“Bitcoin” forks quickly slide away into total irrelevance.  The only ones which hang on with a relatively minuscule market share are the ones backed by rich people who have lots of money to risk attempting to manipulate the market, and organized propaganda to scam people into believing that their pretend-“Bitcoin” is Bitcoin.

It would be difficult to attack Bitcoin with wealth alone.  Bitcoin and its value are supported by too many people, rich and poor.  A rich market manipulator who backs a forked fake-“Bitcoin” may see some short-term gains, especially from pump-and-dump market manipulation.  But in the long term, he will probably lose lots of money:  His scam-coin is competing with Bitcoin, which is collectively backed by the economic resources of too many people all over the world, rich and poor alike.

But the scam becomes dangerous when the fake-“Bitcoin” is promoted with cunning propaganda to fool people into believing that it’s the real Bitcoin.

Newbies and people who never used Bitcoin may wonder why Bitcoiners get angry about fake-“Bitcoin” forks.

Some of that anger is principled outrage.  There are people who deeply believe in Bitcoin’s principles of financial freedom.  Some of them have devoted to those principles their careers, their passions—they have devoted their lives to Bitcoin!  Of course, they will be angry when they see Bitcoin attacked by liars and scammers promoting fake-“Bitcoin”.

More broadly, many people are morally outraged when they see lies, scams, and identity theft.  Of course, people get angry at criminals.

But there is also another reason:  If you have any Bitcoin, whether you have 1000 BTC or only a few precious satoshis, then an attack on Bitcoin is an attack on your wallet.  You may or may not care about Bitcoin’s noble principles.  You will defend those principles, to defend the value of your money.

Part of the genius of Bitcoin is that it turns greed and selfishness toward the common good:  If you have Bitcoin, you want to protect your savings, so you must stand against people who try to devalue it.  Otherwise, you risk losing your savings.

Everybody who has Bitcoin, has an incentive to protect Bitcoin.  If you have Bitcoin, then you are making the world a better place when you defend the value of your own money.  You can’t avoid protecting Bitcoin, if you want to protect your own money.  And if you have Bitcoin, then an attack against Bitcoin is not only an attack against some idealistic theory:  It’s a financial attack on you, personally!  Of course, you should be angry about that.

Whether you are selfish or altruistic—whether or not you give a hoot about making the world a better place—I urge you to rally behind Bitcoin, and stand up against scammers who make fake-“Bitcoins”.  Do it for noble principles.  Or just do it to protect your own money.  If nothing else, it would be stupid of you to ignore scammers who are trying to trash the value of your money.  By standing together, we can stop them:  Expose their lies, shred their scam propaganda, and make sure that new market entrants and the general public know:  There is only one Bitcoin, your Bitcoin, which has value because it is everybody’s Bitcoin.
19  Other / Meta / Suggestion: Stop logging Tor Exit IPs on: January 08, 2020, 03:37:02 AM
Evidently, I can travel at the speed of light! tells me that within a quite short time span, that I have connected from:

Tallinn, Estonia
(Unspecified city), Germany
Lipova, Romania
Amsterdam, Netherlands
(Unspecified city), Austria
(Unspecified city), United States
(Unspecified city), France
(Unspecified city), Switzerland
Nafplion, Greece
Roost, Luxembourg
Sofia, Bulgaria
Brooklyn, United States
Aleksandriya, Ukraine
(Unspecified city), Germany
(Unspecified city), Austria
(Unspecified city), Ukraine
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Bergshamra, Sweden

Seriously, I suggest that by default (and without an option), the forum should automatically discard Tor IPs before the information even hits the “User IP logs”—or if needed, log access as “Tor Exit” without an IP address and city:

  • The logging of exit IPs does not serve the intended purpose of assisting disposition of account recovery requests.  Indeed, to the contrary:  When handling account recovery, I think you must filter Tor exits anyway.  Otherwise, if a user had ever connected through Tor, an account thief may get lucky and connect through an IP geolocated in a city which the user had apparently connected from.  The probability is not negligible:  There are over a thousand Tor exits located all over the world, mostly in densely-populated urban areas; and a Tor user can easily jump around through dozens of them in a matter of hours.
  • Although the logging of Tor exits seems to be not a big privacy concern, why keep around useless data that may be useful for unlikely attacks?  Is the risk to Tor users small?  Large?  Who cares?  The principle of “need-to-know” data minimization seems implicit throughout the forum’s “about privacy” page.  Keeping those IPs around just burdens to the forum and its administration with useless data that they don’t need, and probably therefore don’t want.
  • For Tor users, the forum is mostly served through Cloudflare’s onions* via Alt-Svc, with no client IP address.  I have instrumented my Tor daemon with connection-logging functionality that would probably scandalize Tor Project developers; thus, it has been easy for me to confirm that most of my hits on actually go to a group of v3 onions with names starting with “cflare”.  I only hit via an exit when Tor Browser’s knowledge of Alt-Svc is nonexistent or stale for whatever reason.  (Due to the way Alt-Svc works, a Tor user will always hit with an exit IP at least once at the start of a new browser session.)

It’s probably a relatively low priority for forum improvement; but if you anyway must exclude Tor exits when performing account recovery, the functionality is needed.  I suggest it’s better to do that at the source of data, and discard Tor IPs, rather than later, at the time of use.

(* Of course, Cloudflare can still see all traffic sent through its own onions.  At least their auto-onion feature takes a big load off Tor exit capacity, a perennial bottleneck due to the difficulty and risks of running an exit; and the metadata (time and IP) for connections via an onion cannot be seen by network spies who may watch traffic from Tor exits.  In fairness, I will give them significant credit for doing a bit to help user privacy against adversaries who are not Cloudflare.  In my book, is an offset against their terrifically larger debit for MITMing TLS for what seems like half the web nowadays.  —  I have observed, entities have an interest in protecting people from everybody but themselves.  The NSA wans to pwn your crypto, but doesn’t want the Chinese to pwn your crypto.  Google wants your connections to Google to be secure, so that only they will be able to buttfork your privacy.  Facebook wants you to securely connect to Facebook (even through an onion!), so that you can privately destroy your privacy on Facebook.  I think that Cloudflare is absolutely sincere in their desire to protect users against everybody except Cloudflare.  Well, generally, intelligence data loses its value if others have it...)
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam] on: January 05, 2020, 11:00:03 PM
Translations:  PyccкийRomânăहिन्दीFilipinoBahasa IndonesiaTürkçeHrvatski
(Listed in chronological order of local topic creation.)

This is a princess named Anastasia, officially styled Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, the youngest daughter of the last Russian Czar, photographed c. 1910:

On 17 July 1918, Communists murdered Anastasia together with her parents and siblings.  Anastasia was only 17 years old.  Her and her family’s bodies were mutilated to impede identification, and hidden so well that the remains were only finally discovered in 1991 and 2007, in two different places.

False rumours circulated, claiming that Anastasia had survived and escaped.  It is scientifically certain that those rumours were false:  DNA testing has accounted for all of the missing bodies.  Anastasia died in 1918.

In the 1920s through 1990s, multiple different imposters claimed to be Anastasia.  The imposters persuaded many people to believe their lies.  The most famous imposter, who had a long history of mental illness, even convinced one of Anastasia’s living relatives that she was the real Anastasia.  I will not hereby repeat the whole story; it is irrelevant, and embarrassing to the family.

These imposters were identity thieves.  They stole the identity of a famous person who had disappeared.  They did it for fame, or to try to swindle money from Anastasia’s wealthy relatives, or because they were crazy—or all of the above.  What they did was wrong; and it was hurtful to people who cared about Anastasia.

The identity of Bitcoin’s anonymous founder has been stolen by an imposter.

Craig Wright is an identity thief:  He claims the name and reputation of someone who is not him.  His claims are so absurd, there is only one reason why anybody would believe:  Only an extreme liar would dare to make such absurd claims!  Most people see him for what he is:  An extreme liar.

He is not the first to claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, only the most brazen.  And he will not be the last.  Mark my words!  There is a big incentive for criminal imposters to pretend to be Satoshi Nakamoto.  During the Twentieth Century, people eventually came to shrug when they heard about another Anastasia imposter.  I expect that for about the next 50–70 years, as Bitcoin grows in value and popularity, people will come to react similarly to another Satoshi imposter. Roll Eyes

But that is no reason to ignore the imposters!

Identity theft is wrong.  It is fraudulent, and it’s a crime.  In the case of theft of a famous identity, the imposture can hurt many people.  It must be stopped.

I hereby call on Bitcoiners to unite in opposition to identity theft.  Call it out when you see it.  Call it what it is, identity theft.  Never ignore it!  Stand up to it, whether the theft is big or small.  And if the identity thief is trying to hijack a famous identity so as to scam lots of people for lots of money, make sure that everybody knows this is identity theft on a grand scale.

Do it because it’s right.  Do it to protect Bitcoin.  And do it in memory of Anastasia, an innocent victim of famous identity theft for seven decades after she was already dead.

Moderation note:  Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood.  And I am in a bad mood.  Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi.  Thank you.

Sigspam and posts that quote the whole OP will be deleted.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!