Which is contradicting the recent letter:
Satoshi contradicted himself on micropayments and scaling as well. Initially he was more bullish in terms of what Bitcoin could do but then became more realistic given the hardware/network constraints and network abuse that required more fees and block size limits. So depending the time-space coordinates you could take contradictory quotes even on the same issue. He kind of postponed his bullishness for a time when tech would allow more. |
|
|
|
There was a spoofed message sent to the linuxfoundation mailing list that looked like it was sent by Satoshi through vistomail.com saying that Satoshi was not Craig Wright.
Theymos proved it was spoofed by checking where it really came from. I don't know how theymos did it, but couldn't he also check whether the Satoshi mail we are discussing is spoofed?
Of course he could. But since the narrative of the message aligned with his own and with plenty of gullible salvationists like Alex hanging on his every word - why would he? There is no salvation on the menu. It's the fullblockalypse, the forkageddon and the second coming of satoshi combined. Let's fork bitcoin to "save it from failure" in order to trigger the event where he would be forced to officially declare it a failure - if it's him of course. That will work really well for everyone, forkers and non-forkers alike  |
|
|
|
You dont get it do you? If it would be possible. I could also store your entire being in a single bit. How can a single bit represent you? Are you 0 or 1?
It wouldn't work that way. Say you have compression savings of 1%. When you compress down to 100 bits you then go to 99 (-1%). Then what? You would need 98.01 bits storage, so there is your limit. 98.01 = 99 = you can't go further. You failed to get the point, I will assume you are represented by a 0. I thought you were trying to prove the impossibility of multiple-iteration compression by creating a single-bit paradox  |
|
|
|
You dont get it do you? If it would be possible. I could also store your entire being in a single bit. How can a single bit represent you? Are you 0 or 1?
It wouldn't work that way. Say you have compression savings of 1%. When you compress down to 100 bits you then go to 99 (-1%). Then what? You would need 98.01 bits storage, so there is your limit. 98.01 = 99 = you can't go further. |
|
|
|
Saying you'll get 99.9% sounds much different than saying I can get 0.1%, doesn't it? Yet if you can get 0.1% consistently, in every data set (obviously that includes compressed ones), then over several hundreds / thousand iterations you'll end up with a fraction of the original size.
You cannot get 0.1% consistently - if you are given a random set of values with no repeat then how on earth did you compress it by any percentage at all? You are either deluded or wanting to scam but in either case your statements are not even close to rational. You don't need to be 100% static in your approach like I proposed upthread. You could alternate compression technique in each compression iteration. For example you could be using a classic compression in odd iterations and a pre-shared table in even iterations. This way, each step would be easier to compress as a pre-shared table would be like starting compression from scratch / the classic one would start with a fresh data set. Look, I'm not developing 99% compression algorithms but I'm fairly confident it can be done. And it will be done (if it hasn't been already). |
|
|
|
If you ask me "is 99.9% compression feasible" in every data set, I have 100% confidence that it is. I just don't know the method.
Then unfortunately the only thing to say about that is that you probably shouldn't repeat that (and oops - I just quoted you so now you can't erase it - damn that stupid internet never forgets thing). There is a very extensive list about things that we "shouldn't" have achieved, and experts were sure of it, yet we did. As I said, if you find something that can shave off even 1 or 0.1% per iteration, it's just a matter of how many times you fold the data from that point onward. Saying you'll get 99.9% sounds much different than saying I can get 0.1%, doesn't it? Yet if you can get 0.1% consistently, in every data set (obviously that includes compressed ones), then over several hundreds / thousand iterations you'll end up with a fraction of the original size. |
|
|
|
I'm not very tech-savy, but I think I can understand the problem: how can you make a summary of a book made up of random words? The problem is not easy, but I was thinking about that: what if we substitute the most repeating series of numbers with a symbol? I.e. you could replace the 00000 (if it happens many times in the block) with @, 037753198 (if it happens more than N times) with ₩ and so on.....
Could it work?
It definitely would. However the symbol would end up being represented by binary data. So if you have, say, one byte of storage, that's 255 symbols and a no-symbol, which are then represented by 8 binary digits. (0 or 1 from 00000000 to 11111111) If we had a hardware chip that had a table of, say, 100.000 "symbols" that didn't operate in binary, it would work. But it would have to "cooperate" with the rest of the system that would then need "translators". I've read something similar here: http://www.endlesscompression.com/"In the Dutch book "De broncode"(*) Jan Sloot talks about an other way of thinking, something what work at hardware level, what's an other way of coding he also named it "seven" translated from Dutch it can also mean "to sieve" or "to filter". He didn't use zeros and one's any more because that was two dimensional he explains that there are three dimensions." |
|
|
|
This is not about video per se. It's about an algorithm that a neural network discovered, which could compress a lot of data with very high percentage ratio.
The fact that they publish nothing about this supposed algorithm suggests that it is in fact a hoax rather than some revolutionary new thing. It's strange that people will just accept "we can't publish stuff because of X" when in fact they could publish the specific algorithm used (for the supposed video mentioned) without giving away how that algorithm was created (as supposedly the algorithm was simply one of an infinite number that this amazing AI could create). Some ideas can be so radical that even hinting at the direction of the proposed solution could ignite "lamps" over other people's heads that would try to reproduce the solution. If you ask me "is 99.9% compression feasible" in every data set, I have 100% confidence that it is. I just don't know the method. Theoretically even if you find an algorithm that reduces size by even 1-2% in every possible data set, then you only have to fold the data multiple times and bring them to near zero over a large number of iterations. It would have a cpu tradeoff though. |
|
|
|
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. .....
Satoshi Nakamoto
I had not seen that letter until now, but it looks like a lot of vague bla-bla without even a hint of a technical argument. I'll eat my hat if that was written by any of the very skilled mathematician/cryptographer(s) that designed bitcoin. What did you expect to read? Maths and crypto, for things related to social engineering, populist methods, consensus and forks? Yes. That is what technical people do. When there is a technical issue at hand, not a social one. |
|
|
|
This is a nice example of why people with IT degree need to decide on the technicalities (not trying to be offensive). Compressing random data usually results in 0% saved space or the compressed file ends up actually being bigger than the original.
We just need a revolutionary new compression method. Something like that: http://www.theserverside.com/feature/Has-a-New-York-startup-achieved-a-99-compression-rateFrom presentations I've seen, this is not only for video. It was thought that it would be marketed best for video because video takes up most internet bandwidth nowadays. Perhaps people with neural networks will start competing on finding increasingly more efficient compression, compared to what we have now. Video has a lot of predictable redundant data. Random data is, well, random. And video compression is typically lossy. Lossy would never work for the blockchain. This is not about video per se. It's about an algorithm that a neural network discovered, which could compress a lot of data with very high percentage ratio. Video is just one of the deployment markets because it takes up >50% of internet bandwidth, so, naturally, they went after it. But, from what I saw in one of the presentations, it's more like data agnostic. Plus, in that example, the original file is an MP4, which has already reduced redundant data (and has loss of quality). |
|
|
|
Do you still cling to the belief that this was written by satoshi in an attempt to ride in like a knight in shining armour to save you? Really?
There is no saving here. If he is truly Satoshi, then when Satoshi comes back after a fork it will be to declare the project dead. Whether you hold core-coins or gavin-coins, you are fucked in that scenario. |
|
|
|
This is a nice example of why people with IT degree need to decide on the technicalities (not trying to be offensive). Compressing random data usually results in 0% saved space or the compressed file ends up actually being bigger than the original.
We just need a revolutionary new compression method. Something like that: http://www.theserverside.com/feature/Has-a-New-York-startup-achieved-a-99-compression-rateFrom presentations I've seen, this is not only for video. It was thought that it would be marketed best for video because video takes up most internet bandwidth nowadays. Perhaps people with neural networks will start competing on finding increasingly more efficient compression, compared to what we have now. |
|
|
|
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. .....
Satoshi Nakamoto
I had not seen that letter until now, but it looks like a lot of vague bla-bla without even a hint of a technical argument. I'll eat my hat if that was written by any of the very skilled mathematician/cryptographer(s) that designed bitcoin. What did you expect to read? Maths and crypto, for things related to social engineering, populist methods, consensus and forks? |
|
|
|
I think you got it backwards. The volatility was the result of main stream media attention to the threat of stalling growth of Bitcoin due to the shortage of block space. Growth of micropayments was not on the table, per Satoshi himself. They don't scale with the existing tech. He was hoping for technology to solve this issue - and so far this hasn't been the case. It may be solved in 10-20 years, right now it isn't. Now that it slowly but surely becomes clear that Core is getting ditched for Classic by the community, the volatility is getting less. Once more details emerge about the implementation path of Classic, you can expect a rally.
There will be two coins of 21mn supply after the fork. The money supply will be doubled. Some that prefer the 25% variant will be dumping on the 75ers. The opposite may not even work due to lack of exchange support, lol. And that's the least of our worries. If there is even a 10% chance that Satoshi actually wrote the letter back in August against XT and Gavin, what follows a successful fork may be Satoshi coming out and saying "ok, NOW it's an official failure". Hearn's bullshit will not be even 1% in magnitude compared to Satoshi declaring it dead because BTC became Gavincoin. Now that it slowly but surely becomes clear that Core is getting ditched for Classic by the community, the volatility is getting less. Once more details emerge about the implementation path of Classic, you can expect a rally.
There is a serious risk that the post of Satoshi against XT fork is real. In that case, if the "classic" fork succeeds, what Hearn says about bitcoin dying will be ...nothing compared to a Satoshi declaration of BTC failure.I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
Do you feel lucky? I don't. There has been a social engineering attack and it has been successful. If btc turns to gavincoin / nsacoin under the pretext of "larger blocks urgency" => it's dead (per Satoshi). And we may have a public obituary for it by fuckin' Satoshi. if core folds and goes to 2mb or segwit right now => it's theoretically better than turning btc into gavincoin but it's still a social engineering attack success, in terms of pushing things and breaking consensus under the threat of a hard fork. The parameter that "btc fails because there is no space" is for technically ignorant people. At most some dust will transact with a lower priority due to zero or low fees. |
|
|
|
But as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).
The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that? It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW. You don't need to buy the nodes when you have a the owner of most of them under your thumb via escaping a fincen investigation through cooperation. Are you guys really this naïve? Chimerical? On one hand you say dash will compete with global currencies and on the other you think the authorities won't have incentive to attack or destroy dash if it becomes plausible that it could do so. Listen to yourself. The government will take over a big percentage of the masternodes in order to jam one out of every few hundred transactions. You don't burn such a card for ...jamming instantx txs. The game theory doesn't add up. Of course it doesn't add up if you use Evan's math (remember this is the same math that called darksend fast and X11 secure). I suggest you use TPTB_need_war's math and arrive at the correct solution. From what I read, it's 10% nodes for jamming one every 666 InstantXs. So, let's say the government takes over 10% of the nodes. And they will take them over to maliciously jam 1 out of 666 InstantX transactions? Why? Don't they have anything better to do, like DEANONYMIZING TRANSACTIONS? If I am a government and tap into a good portion of masternodes and I'm able to deanonymize a small % of few-laundering-cycles of DarkSend (~2 rounds), why would I burn that card for ...jamming 1 out of 666 instantx txs? It doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
Dash.org is down (or DDOSed as well). Someone hates the dash upswing?  I have no problem accessing dash.org from Indonesia I checked with http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ to verify it's not me only, when I posted it and it was down for everybody. Right now it's ok. |
|
|
|
But as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).
The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that? It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW. You don't need to buy the nodes when you have a the owner of most of them under your thumb via escaping a fincen investigation through cooperation. Are you guys really this naïve? Chimerical? On one hand you say dash will compete with global currencies and on the other you think the authorities won't have incentive to attack or destroy dash if it becomes plausible that it could do so. Listen to yourself. The government will take over a big percentage of the masternodes in order to jam one out of every few hundred transactions. You don't burn such a card for ...jamming instantx txs. The game theory doesn't add up. |
|
|
|
Dash.org is down (or DDOSed as well). Someone hates the dash upswing? |
|
|
|
But as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).
The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that? It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW. |
|
|
|
So if Evan or the decentralized budget, issued a bounty for third parties to break InstantX, would you break it or would you say "oh, but we don't have the X million dollars required to buy the necessary amount of masternodes that are necessary for our attack to work"?
Don't Evan and Otoh own enough of the network for this type of attack? Don't authorities (if they noticed this little sham) have the means to induce Evan and Otoh to spy on or break dash? See how the discussion moved from code and maths to "the police will come for your coins" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
