Bitcoin Forum
February 25, 2017, 08:53:07 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.2  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 234 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story? on: Today at 06:57:36 AM
GMAX was already on double-secret probation, having been suspended for doxing/harassment/witch-hunting once before (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1704972.0).
Please don't smear me-- I was suspended before because BitcoinXio reported me to the admins for "doxing" for posting a github commit message, which worked for a bit because Reddit staff didn't know that a commit message was not private personal information, and didn't know that Gavin's email address had already been long ago posted by himself. I was unsuspended when they figured it out, and the post in question is visible today: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5g3weu/blockstreams_creator_changes_bitcoin_network/dap9jyr/

Quote
Their site and their liability,

Due to s230 they have basically no (legal) liability for material posted by their users-- even if their action were to rise to the level of recklessness, they would still have no liability.

But indeed, I know about Reddit's rules; but the rules do not prohibit posting material that the person it was about requested be posted, and the person in question had already posted a link to a page they put up with their email address previously.  (Besides, if I'd thought to remove it and done so, it would have invalidated the DKIM signature on the message).  And as I said in my post above-- it's their right to have foolish policies if they choose to. (Ultimately, I think that letting me address libelous comments by one on one refuting them is ultimately a time and trouble saver for reddit, but nothing requires that they agree).

Reddit doesn't really have an appeals process as far as I can tell: All you do within the process is provide information to the specific administrator that they made an error.

2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story? on: February 24, 2017, 11:47:53 PM
And now our friendly (ex)rbtc mod account that I was accused of 'doxing' has argued that it was intended the whole time https://twitter.com/SouperNerd/status/835015250432819200
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story? on: February 24, 2017, 07:01:24 PM
Also, a couple months ago he offered-- unsolicited-- to sell me his moderation account on rbtc so that I could use it to clean things up.
That would have been a very bizarre way of "cleaning [your reputation] up"...

Cleaning up the subreddit of defamatory postings was the apparent idea.

As if...  Grin
yea moon typos from merging together multiple messages.  LOL. or perhaps I'm just subconsciously trying to feed the conspiracy theories.
4  Other / Off-topic / Re: nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story? on: February 24, 2017, 06:47:22 AM
but remains a 'contractor' of blockstream under the title advisor and his "employment" at blockstream is not terminated. just set to on sabbatical/contractor
No,  This is entirely and bizarrely offopic but Matt is no longer an employee of Blockstream and not paid in any manner. He is not on sabbatical and not a contractor. He previously took a sabbatical and apparently had a good time because he left.

(Edit: I've reported my post to the moderators here with the hope that they move these offtopic posts to another thread.)
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story? on: February 24, 2017, 03:16:35 AM
Inquiring minds want to know.

I've talked to the admin that performed the block and I know their reason for it.

Here is the background:

A couple days ago a number of people on rbtc started posting this outrageous lie that I backdoored the firewalls of Juniper networks--  I worked for Juniper a number a years ago, and last year they discovered that someone (likely a state actor) had added backdoors to their firewall products. The compromise was traced back to about a year after I left the company.  I never worked on the firewalls and it was a long time after I left-- there isn't any reason to say I was involved (no more than the hundred thousand other juniper alums and current employees) and, of course, no one _except_ rbtc has ever thought there was a reason think I was involved.

I replied refuting this libel (as I've found that if I don't reply they repeat it as fact until it starts showing up in the press as something 'known to be true' Sad )  and the ex-mod soupernerd responded skeptically and basically spreading the claim.

This was highly surprising to me because a couple months ago he contacted me lamenting the lies and personal attacks on Reddit, it just didn't sound like him.  Also, a couple months ago he offered-- unsolicited-- to sell me his moderation account on rbtc so that I could use it to clean things up.  An offer I did not accept.

So I asked him if he was the original account owner.  He insisted that I was incorrect and that he was insulted that I'd suggest that he would sell his account.  I pointed out that he did attempt to sell his account and that I had cryptographically signed emails showing it. He demanded I show it, so of course I did: https://0bin.net/paste/uH-GH2fgXFSQT--i#1EXsaWxQAGJXFnqnyYXo7LS9KvbLwRGrQQ0fRcTLXw0  Of course, even if I wanted or thought it was appropriate to remove the email address (which had no personal information beyond the same pseudonym as used on Reddit)-- I couldn't without invalidating the digital signature.  He continued to deny it, denied ever owning that email address, but  many other people cropped up and showed he was using that address on twitter, classic slack, domain registrations, and other places. Souprnerd was banned on rbtc.

A few months back rbtc's admins also fraudulently reported me for 'doxing' because I posted a commit message from the public Bitcoin repository to show the origin of an error message a person was accusing me of maliciously adding (the error message was added by Gavin). I was unbanned after showing the Reddit admin that Gavin himself had posted his name and info on Reddit months ago.

So after this souprnerd posting the rbtc admins reported me to the site admins asserting that I was repeatedly  guilty of doxing and in response Reddit has permanently suspended my account because of this.  

Unfortunately, I think Reddit's admins are just being unwittingly made pawns in certain parties fight against the Bitcoin project; similar to how bad actors in that subreddit have gotten Bitcoin developer sites listed on anti-malware bad site lists and Bitcoin Core listed in anti-virus software as malware.  The fact of the matter is that their untruthful claims are more effective when there isn't an expert relentlessly disagreeing with them, and if they can use reddit as a pawn to achieve their goals they think that is fair game (as Roger Ver told me specifically when I previously complained about the ethics of him attempting to pressure Reddit's CEO for control over rbitcoin).

Meanwhile, the same Reddit admin (so I am told) decided that both Myself and Theymos' personal information is fair game on the site.

Of course, Reddit is free to decide to kick users off their service-- even capriciously-- it's their site.
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.14.0 release candidate 1 available on: February 23, 2017, 06:58:08 AM
Does this affect the waiting time to get low-fee but above minrelaytxfee transactions cancelled and return them to our wallets?
There is no "cancel and return" in Bitcoin, as mentioned.

Testing indicated that there was little difference in these cases both because they'll expire due to low fees, and also because there are parties going around aggressively rebroadcasting old transactions anyways. The artificial expiration mostly only had the effect of making it harder to get low fee long delay transactions in for those who care to make them.
7  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.14.0 release candidate 1 available on: February 19, 2017, 01:44:04 PM
The release notes are still a bit in flux.

There are some really nice performance improvements in 0.14 which aren't mentioned in the release notes yet.

Another major feature in 0.14 is support for after the fact fee bumping-- if a transaction is taking longer to confirm than you want, you can increase the fee.

The release notes make it sound like getinfo is gone completely. This isn't the case, it has been marked deprecated and will be phased out in the future. But for now the only change is that the help for it tells you not to use it anymore.
8  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Bitcoin Core 0.14.0 release candidate 1 available on: February 19, 2017, 01:42:38 PM

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-core-dev/2017-February/000032.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Release candidate 1 of a new major bitcoin Core release, version 0.14.0, has
been made available.

This is a release candidate for a new major version release, including new
features, various bugfixes and performance improvements.

Preliminary release notes for the release can be found here:

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.14/doc/release-notes.md

Binaries can be downloaded from:

    https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.14.0/test.rc1/

Source code can be found on github under the signed tag

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/v0.14.0rc1

Release candidates are test versions for releases. When no critical problems
are found, this release candidate will be tagged as 0.14.0 final, otherwise
a new rc will be made available after these are solved.

Please report bugs using the issue tracker at github:

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJYqYjyAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmyjwH/3J4ML+yUgj7j6hGr9/cQm4T
5I1lcGNIeh12qlJV/0ZlOI4U1gi+PgDUlGVflKWNN87h/S6XebGE5ovjF1bNZEed
KRB/gQTXQIg4v/rObslibs8W1LESGB6Ttif7icvUZ7uMFqP7N76tMOEQM8WGK6NZ
6v0fqTC15RoEkv+/y5ZwSYPm5F+ZT0JEBXMIIQ873nQ45JckJ3+aU4i321gn0KDk
kBm348wYqOqdEpQ7hpbMPStoXMrfsijM00FK5/98F5LTLubbf0a0+cdZDVak1t44
roLA2dfh3cYHFncEBFO4nJ71iSnbaqgfx9HRilfCF5O4zfDcZgWRKkUTHft1Z9o=
=2z+P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: FeeFilter message (minmempoolfee) and privacy on: February 18, 2017, 12:27:45 AM
It's not clear to me if you understand the purpose of fee filter.

The purpose of feefilter is not to "find out the fee", the purpose is so that peers will not waste bandwidth INVing you transactions that you will not bother accepting.

The mempool message is not supported by all nodes, and is delayed and restricted for privacy reasons.

Similarly, reject messages are not universally used, and are not mandatory. There has been some recent discussion about eliminating most of them from the protocol since most are never used by any application and serve no purpose but wasting bandwidth and harming privacy.  (They were not originally in the protocol, their addition was somewhat controversial, and they have not turned out to be useful for the things they were claimed to be useful for).

The settings are also just one privacy vector. The minfee your node has depends on the settings as well as the history of limit reaching events that it has seen.  As a result, there is some information leakage as a node moves connections around the network. It isn't a significant leakage, but it costs basically nothing to decrease it a little.
10  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! on: February 15, 2017, 06:18:21 PM
The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.
No politics, only dishonesty, enh?
11  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is my method a secure way to gather entropy? on: February 15, 2017, 09:51:19 AM
-snip-
That is my thought process.

You somehow assume asking a search engine will improve things, but it wont. You would just encode the information in a different way. Anyone that knows your keywords will find the same results[1]. If your initial keywords are not randomly generated, neither are your results. You also open yourself to several new attack vectors (e.g. MITM and Sybil) because you rely on information provided by others. Its significantly more difficult to manipulate a building you are about to take a picture off[2] than intercept your internet traffic and feed you predetermined data based on knowledge of your algorithm. If you really want to bake your own PRNG I suggest you follow piotr_n's advice. What you came up with might work for some time, until someone has a (strong) interest to make it work in their favor.

[1] within reason. There is a chance that different results will show up based on googles profiling or other factors.
[2] or the sound a busy intersection makes, etc.


This can't be emphasized enough. The OP's fancy scheme is just a few more bits of key material (which they've now made public). Real attackers search not just over the words but over the methods, and this scheme has added little to no actual entropy-- it has just added complexity and serious additional leak risks.  It is the worst kind of security theater.

Unfortunately, I've found that when someone has gone down this rabbit hole they often become addicted to the complexity of their ritual-- like move "conspiracy wall"-- they weave together steps which don't help and sometimes hurt their security, but are unshakably convinced that it is the most secure method ever.  ... I've given up trying to convince them otherwise... but I comment so that someone who comes across this stuff with a spotless mind will not gain the impression that people think it is good it isn't.

12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Block-size debate solution on: February 13, 2017, 03:06:39 AM
I wouldn't believe Mike Hearn if he told me the sky was blue-- but regardless-- we all learn, and what I quoted was written by Satoshi years later. (I also wonder if that was the email that Hearn posted while editing out mention of payment channels, -- I know he did that in one instance)
13  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Block-size debate solution on: February 12, 2017, 11:12:09 PM
Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 11, 2017, 07:41:58 PM
wake up. read something.
"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"

Please.

Old nodes do not relay, display as unconfirmed, or mine segwit transactions. At no point are they cut off from the network in any way.  By contrast, your desperately proposed hardforks would force all non-participating systems into a separate network.

But keep on, I enjoy watching you turn red faced as people simply laugh off your constant misinformation.

It's confidence inspiring to be so opposed by the dishonest and the deranged.
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: List of people who have had commit access to Bitcoin Core on: February 02, 2017, 06:21:08 AM
Quote
having been given the position

I think it would be more correct to say that it was recognized that he was already doing it.  Appointed positions often don't make sense in Open Source, because it matters a lot more what people do than some kind of title. 
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: As it turns out, Craig Wright actually is Satoshi! on: January 27, 2017, 04:38:06 AM
franky1 is now also an enemy of fungiblity and not just decentralization? color me surprised.

FWIW, rumor I'm hearing is that Wright is going to be the marketing face for some a new altcoin.   If anyone is selling futures on it, I'm interested in shorting it. Tongue
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: As it turns out, Craig Wright actually is Satoshi! on: January 27, 2017, 02:20:48 AM
In this thread, large block maniacs show that their judgement is equally poor in other domains.
18  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: can anyone trace any relation between two Adress . on: January 26, 2017, 05:52:39 PM
Lite wallets all transmit a list of their addresses (or some equivalent) to the servers they use to get data about the network. Doing so obviously links your addresses together.  If you're running a full node this isn't an issue.
19  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! on: January 26, 2017, 10:01:12 AM
Hmm well I've started reading the arguments of the Bitcoin Unlimited project, and they are simple and concise. As painful as it is, I may start running their software. I feel it's the only way I can send the message to the core devs to
That isn't the message you send me by running it.

Quote
Segwit, only 25% have adopted it!
62% of listening nodes are signaling segwit support right now.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit yay or nay? come vote here. on: January 25, 2017, 11:15:19 AM
I think that is overly exaggerated. If my node is currently connected to several old nodes, I don't expect that to change post-Segwit activation. However, I know that I may be wrong. I have not looked into it.
Connection behavior is the same pre and post segwit activation.  Having the network topology change all at once would be an unnecessary risk.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 234 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!