i am not even reading what you wrote but


ell oh fucking ellllll

Where did the initial danny maddox connection come from? I saw the facebook posted in one of the threads but no info regarding the connection.

So BCX gets ousted
Creates fake but real account to try to clear his own name
Deflections and accusations to bitlane from both real fake and fake personas

totally plausible for a psychotic

Pruning, as it has to be implemented for bitcoin, currently does not even buy any time. Unless you trust someone, you will always have to download the entire history of bitcoin before becoming a full client. Now, down the road, the developers might at some point say hey, this is ridiculous, and attempt to push a fork-inducing change that will once again be decided by a few people in the community apart from the rest. See the BIP16/17 "scandal" if you are unfamiliar with what I am referring to. The solution is an account based ledger rather than a transaction ledger.

Is BCX so psychotic that he could perhaps destroy his own online persona? maybe. but I'd like to believe this story is true.

I believe Red argued this very point in one of the encoin threads--that what the developers have done is essentially a form of centralization. But it is possible for a fork to exist permanently if some people decide that what the developers decide is incorrect, so it isn't really an issue. Although I believe they use a block like 1,000 blocks in the past so there isn't much discussion on those blocks. I could be wrong on that though.

I spend hundreds of hours coming up with ideas behind encoin/decrits to solve most of the problems with bitcoin. I think I already linked you to it, but here it is again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91183.0 the encoin wiki is here: http://justinbporter.com/encoin/doku.php - but that is not my site so I don't know how long it may stay up. The encoin wiki has mostly outdated ideas, but it still has a lot of the core stuff like the consensus block with an account ledger instead of a transaction ledger and so on.

I feel your frustration with the current crop of coins and developers, but bringing a project like this to fruition is beyond my capabilities, at least at this time.

So, not only does the gunman want your BTC, but this gunman must be well aware of the danger of you, while a gun is being held to your head, being able to 51% attack the network and reverse the transaction you are about to send right in front of him because that risk is far greater than that of someone else stumbling upon the scene for an hour or so.


I'm still waiting for the miraculous proof on how assuming equal network power that 4x LTC confirms > 1x BTC, or 24x > 6x in the case of an hour. Sounds like you just want to spew litecoin homerisms just like any bitcoiner would do.

I have to wonder why people are asking or hoping for LTC to serve some purpose different from BTC when they are exactly the same thing with a few inconsequential tweaks. There is nothing about LTC that makes it better for micropayments, they use the exact same protocol.

Golly gee look at the honesty bitcoin has engendered around here.

So infantile, yet so apt.

I have proposed this in many variations, the newest being Decrits: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91183.0
Currency is still mined, but security is from proof of share.

Uhh, I am not. This will certainly be automated. Nonce data won't accomplish anything, there is enough randomness to each tx or block to already cover that. The bitcoin patterns will be obvious to pattern-recognition, so the alternative is to pad with lots and lots of useless data. It is not a pleasant way out, but it is a possibility if there is legislative action to block bitcoin or whatever else.

From the little I've read and watched about this topic, hiding bitcoin traffic would be fairly difficult even if encrypted. The handshake process will be a dead giveaway, but if it is made to mimic another handshake process, it will still be nearly impossible to mask the data stream (400 bytes at irregular intervals, oh look it's bitcoin!), at least not without ballooning the amount of data required.

burrrrrrrrn

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

It is most definitely a weakness. It makes perpetuating an attack on the security of the network trivial. It also means that if any one of the networks based off of bitcoin is attacked, they can all be.


While devising a new security system would be difficult (although I suggest you take a long look into the idea of a weighted block chain that I briefly talk about here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64637.0), the account ledger really would not be that much effort. But if you'd rather not make any steps forward in crypto-currency technology, that is your unfortunate prerogative.

You say it's not archaic, then go on to say this is the way it has been done for all history. 


I'm not saying it's bad because it uses energy, I'm saying it's bad because it's not secure (he who controls the hardware and/or money controls the money) and it only encourages wastefulness when it is not absolutely necessary. Every tx fee or every amount of demurrage is going to have to be paid for again and again and again. But getting around that is more complicated than switching to an account ledger, I think.

You absolutely can. There would be little need to even make the distinction of a "lite-client" with an account ledger. Try thinking outside the box just a little bit.

At the very least you could stop wasting thought energy on how to implement pruning. Switch to an account ledger instead of a transaction ledger. If at the very least you want to accomplish something, you should try some major improvements on the protocol. That way at least there is actually progress instead of sidegress.

You claim that bitcoin is doing well, but we don't know what could have happened had it not already experienced a bubble. But c'mon, the system is just designed to bubble and burst. It may always end up better than before the bubble, but the waves created in the mean time will be fierce.


I have definitely conceded these things with my own latest proposal, and I think it is a much saner system than bitcoin's or freicoin's.


This all sounds nice, but you still need to get away from limited supply and the rest of bitcoin's archaism such as using energy to secure the network.