the genesis block?

cool.  i dont even know what level i am.  i guess ill see when i hit submit PM sent

yeah thanks.  I sent a few NXT to your account and was able to send it back out using your passphrase, so it indeed was not a 64bit collision.  if it was then I would not be able to use your passphrase to send.  not sure, but I suspect we may not have even been able log back into any client with that passphrase if indeed it was a 64bit collision.  whoever is out there offline bruteforcing the blockchain, must have guessed it on you.  sorry dude

why do you think I need someone to do it may way so bad?  You are way off in the weeds.  I dont think that it necessarily NEEDS to be done, which is where youve been all off the whole time.  My point all along is that it would be risky for an innovative altcoin to include satoshis millions. 

but since your debate skills are so weak lets just leave it at this..  when some genius coder releases an innovative crypto and includes satoshis millions, then ill award you a cookie.  and ill bow to that coder cause he will have a huge set of balls between his legs.

thats all im saying, this whole discussion.  that a coder with an innovative crypto that has the possibility to take over BTC may think twice before including satoshis millions.  will satoshi ride the new altcoin's fortune?  or will he dump his holdings of the altcoin so as to allow BTC to reign?  thats all im saying, here, is that there is a hard decision here for someone with a novel new crypto wanting to use the BTC blockchain distrib.  satoshi so far seems to not care about cashing out all his BTC and getting mega rich.  so this lends credence to the thought that he cares more about BTC than fiat.  thus my position that he may crash a new altcoin that threatens BTC.

i have no clue why you seem to think im arguing something else.  and like I keep saying counterparty's was best for BTC anyways.

the amount or % of altclones he has is irrelevant.  I say he may dump his altcoin holdings because BTC is his personal triumphant achievement and a novel altcoin (not some dump generic sha256/scrypt pumpndump coin) that begins performing very well would be a threat to BTC.  you even admitted to the fact that he has lots of BTC early on in the discussion when you said that "maybe we shouldnt piss him off" or something like that. then you flip flop.  You have flip flopped here twice on whether or not SN owns tons of BTC.  first you say he does and may dump it all if we piss him off.  then you try to make another argument based on that he probably doesnt and demand that I prove he does.  and then you switch back to saying he does.  You have pretty much lost all credibility for an argument, so unless you can make a stance and stick with it, any further argument on your end has zero merit unless you want to take a stance and stick with it.

i get the impression (but I may be wrong here) that you are looking at the term "altcoin/altclone" as a generic sha256/scrypt derivative that has nothing new to offer and is only designed for pump and dump.  If that is the case (may not be though) then sure,  give SN all he wants of those.  Im not concerned in the least with those.  its the coins that show technical merit that I am interested in.

sure, the OP will do his experiment with aether and it  will be very interesting.  Fortunately ive got quite a bit of liquidity I can move into BTC and participate in these schemes myself.  But like I said, I seriously doubt that a truly innovative altcoin will do it this way.  Counterparty's is the way to go in this regard.  And this is coming from someone that has never even owned any counterparty.

why do you suppose peter has not given any input in on my position?

sure, peter will do it, because it is a clone of etherium; he wont have any real sweat or hard work in the game.  Ill admit it will be a nice experiment.  But no real coder with novel code will do it that way though, simply because then if his coin takes off, SN may decide to protect BTC by dumping his reserves of the new coin and crashing it.  that is the point which you refuse to address.

and as to SN showing up to complain, did you not see my response:

it should be all about true decentralization and a core that can operate with no trust required.

why are you starting to be hysterical/rude?  Im responding vehemently?  It not like I called your mother a whore or insulted you in any other fashion.  you seem to take my reference of a disconnect as a strike upon your honor when Im just pointing out that we may be talking past each other here in an attempt to start discussing the same thing, because I think we may not be.  Ive run into situations like this before, and the other party's native language was not english.  Is this the case here?

So back to the discussion...

I keep telling you, it wouldnt be trying to "market it as a Bitcoin blockchain distribution thats fair"  because fair has NOTHING to do with this.  it has everything to do with a novel new cryptocurrency being resilient to flooding in the event SN *does* own all BTC we suspect.  Even you have conceded that point previously here when you said "what if our actions piss off SN and so he decides to flood BTC and crash the market.  none of us want that"  that may not exactly have been the phrase but it was something very close along those lines.  You now cannot go back and say "oh well you have to prove it now or your argument is invalid"  My point is that an ideal cryptocurrency will not inherently exhibit the trust issue

Can you tell me what you mean by me putting words in your mouth?  I honestly dont understand, another reason I think there is a disconnect here.

Im not talking about "fair" at all here.  Im talking about long term viability of a novel cryptocurrency and its distribution.  And given that SN was so concerned with creating such a decentralized structure in the first place, Id believe that if he DID own all that BTC out there, how could he not argue that it is a bad idea for one person to control so much?


you are absolutely right here.  these things are possible.  but you have to admit that it is not a REQUIREMENT for some altcoin to want to help and not hinder bitcoin?  That is the big discussion point between us, I think.

there is still a disconnect here between us.  For some reason you are under the assumption that SN is entitled to some particular portion of any altcoin just for the sake of his being SN.  Your stance indicates that some altcoin creator is not free to choose an distribution method he desires, and to let the free market prove if his method was sound or not.

If SN showed up Id tell him its neither right or wrong.  you are asking the equivalent of, say, if the color orange was right or wrong.  it is neither.  it is just orange.

Lets say that you were a genius coder/mathematician/crypto scientist, and you were coding a brilliant new cryptocurrency that had novel new code and some other chain-esque structure that was superior to the BTC blockchain.  This new system had the capability to compete HARD with bitcoin.  YOUD BE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND to give, of all people, SN, the creator of bitcoin, the ability to wreck havoc in your new cryptocurrency.

Also, you are operating under the illusion that the free market happily and conscientiously decided they could trust SN, when in fact this is not the case because when BTC is the only game in town, you either play it or play nothing at all.  its not until up until recently have the altcoins really come out hard.  playing the game may be trusting SN, but in no way is it happily and conscientiously deciding to trust him.

Can you answer my question as to what is it about the distro method with satoshis accounts that would win out over the one without?

you are either backpedaling or changing goalposts.  before, it was "its not fair to satoshi, he is being robbed and so if you include any bitcoin accounts into an altcoin distro then you are morally required to make sure satoshis gets in there too"  now its that you think that if you were to publish, at the same time, 2 altcoins that are technically identical, and with distrib schemes that are both based on BTC blockchain public keys except one doesnt include satoshi's accounts, that the one with satoshis accounts will win out.

Humanity's greed tell me that you are wrong.  That, plus the fact that then satoshi could never crash the altcoin - no trust required. But I could be missing something here, and be mistaken.  So tell me what is it about the method with satoshis accounts that would win out over the one without?

those 2 phrases on either side of the 'yet' in your sentence are mutually exclusive.  you seem to be under the impression there is some universal law that says that it is "wrong" for an altcoin creator to distribute altcoins in any arbitrary manner he so desires.  This includes only distributing his clonecoins to satoshi and to no one else.  Or he could distribute them all to himself.  Or he could distribute it to everyone in the BTC blockchain except satoshi.  or except to satoshi and any account holding more than 10000BTC.  or any other arbitrary fashion.

I postulate that however he does distrib then your "free market" will determine if it is a good idea or not.  But to say that because an altcoin distributor gave his altcoins out to everyone except satoshi, that some entity is "stealing" from satoshi, is just ludicrous.  the altcoins were never satoshis to begin with

thats a strawman.  yes we agree that the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins.  doesnt mean that it is a good idea for a cryptocurrency.  you seem to be hung on a "people keep saying its not fair" thing by your 2009 phrase.

but I do miss the point of your last 2 sentences there.  no one ever said anything about stealing anyones coins.

or are you saying that if someone did a distro method but left out satoshis public addresses that this would be "stealing" SN's altcoins?  surely not...

nothing to do with "fair".  a world with money will never be "fair".  Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin.  face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it.  You are forced to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC.  This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

Satoshi was given no stake in any existing alt, and hes not crashed the value of bitcoin because of this fact.  Why would he crash it from any other distro method to an altcoin?  Especially if you assume the clone in question is just some vanilla no-frills clonecoin.  Why would he crash BTC then, for some other shitcoin?  Now what if it was an altcoin with new codebase and lots of features?  The new coin is superior anyways.  He crashes BTC, then the new coin takes over, was going to happen anyways. This possibility of a satoshi crash highlights a very big vulnerability in BTC in the first place.

Satoshi could become some James Bond -esque supervillian with plans on destroying the worlds economy by crashing BTC.

If you cantt do something in a decentralized currency w/o fear of 1 person crashing something like so, then its both not very secure and not a good idea in the first place (meaning BTC is not a good idea in the first place, not the altcoin or its distro method).

EditToAdd: Yeah, thats a NXT address in my signature.  Even so, counterparty has the best distro method.  It even helped out BTC holders by deflating the currency.

Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions.  Which one will  be successful

Not the same scenario as btc and an alt

Your scenario would be equivalent to an alt completely replacing btc

yes, op, please get us your passphrase.  we're all extremely interested in this case.  if your passphrase generates the public key f32068b534e8e892168dac1a7b90357bc9cd302ab2a68b95483cd18c5d86ee12, then as these bruteforce odds would be the equivalent you you winning a lottery going on right now in some other planet not of this solar system, we will then assume your computer is hacked or someone sniffed your network packets while you used used an online wallet somewhere, or that you used a compromised wallet program.

if your passphrase doesnt generate that public key but does generate that account# then it is a fact that there was a 64bit collision.  and this would be the first publicly known instance.  quite a big deal.  Ill donate 500 NXT to your new account if this is the case.  maybe others will donate as well.

duh nevermind.  the public key was set when the thief sent the NXT

and why use etherium to clone?  are you going to do anything at all different?  or is the only difference going to be etherium will have an IPO and aetherium's distribution will be based off BTC blockchain?

awesome, im in with my 3 supermodels.  and no i dont share.  maybe trade though

i dont see how anyone in their right mind would buy any clone of NXT unless the clone developer proves he has worked around the code traps.  No, Im not talking about the 3 injected flaws in the originally published modified source code either.