That seems silly to me. If they would be dumping at $50K, why did they not already dump four years earlier and with that much less certainty of experience at $20K?

Yes, I have heard CSW state similar things before as well. Of course, that noes not necessarily provide any credence to the story that he is trying to brute force a wallet formerly held by satoshi, that Craig has somehow gotten ahold of. For just one hole in the story, how on earth would he have come into possession of satoshi's wallet? Seems improbable.

Perhaps equally probable (note I did say perhaps) is the rather unlikely notion that Craig is indeed satoshi, and therefore has always legitimately owned the early mined coins in question. I think the current story - that the private keys therein are held in a trust guarded by multisig, and that he will not have access to the other components of the multisig until 2020 as per terms of the trust creation, is at least plausible. Note that I think he has consistently held to this story. For years.

In your video, Krawicz seems to give tacit confirmation of Craig's statement that BTC contains a fatal flaw that could be so exploited. Though his retort -- 'I'll find out and let you know' -- belies more a blind faith than any rational analysis. From other statements, it seems clear that Krawicz has complete faith in the Satoshi/CSW claim, and I have never heard him say anything convincing about his reasons for so believing.

AAR, if indeed CSW does have control of the 980K or 1.1M BTC or whatever, he does have a pretty big tool at his disposal. I doubt however that merely dumping them at market price would have a lasting devastating effect upon BTC, no matter how much pain it causes in the short term.

Shelby has been advancing the proposition that Craig has access to enough currently dark mining power to couple the potential dumping attack with another attack of miners reverting to the original protocol (still possible under the so-called 'soft' fork), claiming all funds in SegWit addresses (which are of course pay-to-anyone under the previous rules, which are still valid as there was never a hard fork). This would force Core to either accept the loss of all such funds, or hard fork off to a parallel chain, where the protocol fully invalidates this earlier ruleset. Indeed, Shelby thinks this attack (irrespective of whether or not CSW has anything to do with it) to be an inevitability at some point.

I'm not so sure that scenario is so certain. Though I should point out that I have been publicly musing about such a scenario almost from the time the soft fork approach to 'solving malleability' was first posited. Indeed, the forces towards such an attack only grow with BTC price appreciation and more germanely with use of SegWit addresses.

IF CSW has access to 1.1M BTC and IF CSW and/or allied miners deign to mount such an attack, then that may be devastating to BTC. Seems a lot of coin tosses would have to land on edge for such to be the case, but...

Heck, I wouldn't even think such an action unethical. It's just part of the game theory. It's not as if these ideas have not been hashed and rehashed publicly since years. Anyone astonished by these ideas either has not been paying attention or is in active denial.

With no known negative consequences.

eta: Other than the loss of the coinbase tx revenues for the initial orphaned miners.

I get all that, and largely agree. I however counter with 'I read ON THE INNERWEBZ...' (i.e., so it must be true).

IOW, I question whether there is any truth to this story at all. I don't doubt you have read such. I have read such as well. But never from any credible source, and never with any source attribution.

I would argue that the 32MB limit was not a protocol limit, but rather an implementation limit on any network message that would be generated by the client.

Maybe when BTC gets near 32MB blocks it might become relevant.

Call for? No. Allow for? Yes.

Remember - permissionless.

---

Read moar. There are no hooks within the protocol to bar any entrant's participation.


Incidentally, it is working splendidly so far.

---

Where the hell do you get this tripe? That statement has no basis in fact whatsoever.

---

Riiiight. You 'read somewhere'. Care to post a citation?

Seems you also have no understanding of Bitcoin. Why would Satoshi choose a less secure cryptographic scheme to secure all his private keys, when he already employs a much more secure cryptographic scheme to define each private key? Answer: It defies credulity to assume this to be true.

---

Other than the fact that Satoshi's original release had no set limit on block size. Well, there is that.

---

Why the heck would anyone be foolish enough to enter their password into an online password strength checker?

How sophomoric.

There is an objective: unfucken the protocol, returning it to the original version.

For prudence, this is being done in a stepwise manner.

Each step is -- say it with me now class -- progress toward that objective.

Haha. Dream on, JJG. I assure you I am as measured and level headed as anyone might hope to be. Such is the benefit of repeated responses to repeated ludicrousity.

... aaand Go Fuck Yourself.

 

Au contraire, mon frere. The fact that everything that one contributes upon this forum is subject to the vagaries and whims of its owner is exactly like Facebook.

Do you feel you need to contradict automatically everything that I type? Because this content ownership equivalency is so blatantly obvious as being the case that I can think of no other reason for your contradiction.


We'll set aside the point that the overwhelming bulk of FB's revenue also comes from selling ads on its platform (so wrong again). And counter the fact that theymos has indeed performed other site monetizing activities. Perhaps you weren't around for the direct appeals for donations for revamped site coding? (strike three in one sentence - way to go!)


Way to completely miss the point again.


WTF are you talking about? BSV was born out of a desire to restore Satoshi's original protocol. The bulk of the devs behind BCH were determined to dev up further divergence from that goal. Much like the original BTC/BCH split, the only way to salvage the original protocol from 'devs gotta dev' mentality was to fork again.


I don't. I've not been much discussing them. But you keep inserting them into discourse. Again with the Craig Derangement Syndrome.

Go fuck yourself, JJG. </obligatory autonomic retort>

Quit being intentionally obtuse. This is where this branch of the thread originated:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg51977374#msg51977374

Incidentally, quite amusing how you love to fly that Craig Derangement Syndrome flag yet again. It's almost as if you don't have any other tools in your toolbox.

Maybe, maybe not. All at the whim of theymos. Not saying that's evil or anything, it is just a reality. Much like Facebook, all your post are belong to us.

If only there were a decentralized, permissionless, uncensorable, immutable repository upon which to host such a discussion....

I disagree. Surprise.

Gee, And I thought the topic of discussion was Microsoft's closing down access to github, and potential solutions thereupon.


I acknowledge that a large input to BSV's market cap is likely the question of the Satoshiness of CSW. However, given the endemic presence of Craig Derangement Syndrome (e.g., the topic of discussion vs. your imperative to making the potential solution a referendum on CSW), it is rather unclear as to whether CSW's association with SV is price-positive, or price-negative.


Funny that. It's not about new tech trying to solve certain problems. It is about established tech that has already solved the problem of permissionless non-inflationary money. And the ONLY chain that is progressing back to that original design.

If you can explain to me how to 'throw off some of these offensive personalities' from a permissionless system, that might be doable. But that would be abandoning perhaps the most foundational principle. Quite the conundrum.

There exists a problem: Microsoft is enforcing geofencing on the repository undergirding the world's most prominent FOSS VCS.

There exists a solution under development: An eventual git-workalike whose repository is built upon a decentralized, permissionless blockchain.

And all you can see is: Aussie man bad!

SMH

Tor doesn't really solve the problem. After all, the trove is still owned by Microsoft.

For everything else, there is CodeOnChain. How prescient.

Yeah, but what if it ends up rhyming with 2013?

My facts are straight. As I said from the outset: "Today".

'Right now' is instantaneous. 24 hours is closer to instantaneous than 7 days. But fine, let's go with your figures for shits'n'giggles.


So your point would seem to boil down to: 3 miners is certain death by centralization, while 4 miners is no risk whatsoever.


Riiiight. </sarc>

I dunno, despite my observation upthread. A standard $1000 face value bag of junk silver is like 54 pounds. So while I wouldn't want that much in a BOB, it might be handy to have at minor-to-mid crunch.