There are a lot of ways to attack BTC and the Lightning Network. Most of them are so esoteric / expensive / just about impossible to implement as to not be worth it.
-Dave
There is a main difference in attacking bitcoin compared to attacks in any layer . Best thing you can do is make a double spend of your own money . So that double spend has to be more profitable than the cost ( hardware cost + energy spend ) of the attack . And even if you decide to make an unprofitable bet trying to destroy the network , honest nodes can reorg the chain and leave you with a move that produced zero profit and a massive loss . Attacking base layer will always have a much higher economic cost than attacking other layers . That's the brilliance of the invention . |
|
|
|
Ah yes the blanket statement that all politicians and fiat bosses use to annihilate a section of cryptocurrency they don't like.
They conveniently ignore the fact that their own banks are 100x more guilty for money laundering and terrorist financing at scale.
So true , let's make bitcoin as equally or even more guilty to prove that we are by far better than them . |
|
|
|
|
My reply to the OP is that no , governments will not be able to seize all bitcoins as the supply is distributed globally so each government will try to protect the wealth of it's own citizens . Of course that will not apply for acquired coins through illegal activities .
Now to the part that everyone says "it's decentralised" so no one can control it .
But what decentralised mean ? Let's consider that the network consists by three entities . Developers , block producers and users .
Developers can be "easily" controlled either by force or money . Anonymity on the internet is a no go if three letter agencies decide to go after you .
Block producers are big known entities connected to the internet , so another no go if governments want to force their will . Block reward is based on time and each msec counts , so by trying to hide your identity using "anonymous" routes affect your profitability . In other words known entities have a higher factor of solving the new blocks .
Users are spread all over the world , so there's a very low probability governments will be able to control them . In a totalitarian state things will be worse , but as most countries are based on "democracy" i think this will be fine .
Now , what happens if devs and block producers face a government order to follow specific rules ? Users might decide that it's on their best interest to not continue support the network and leave it for a fork . For that new network to continue exist , a group of developers , will have to be in charge . Probably they will try to hide their identities in a better way and 1% chance they might make it . The problem is , would users trust that team ? 99% of users have no deep knowledge of reading/understanding code so that would cause problems of trust and the slow death of that network ( consider that even monero which supports anonymity was created by a known entity and not some anonymous handle ) . Let's add to this that a large ( vast majority ) portion of hashpower will be forced to apply to the government's rules . Most hashpower is currently located in big mining farms and these farms are entities that are interested to profit . They are not ideological warriors that want to destroy governments will .
In other words , if governments wanted to destroy bitcoin they would do it in a year . Let's not take too light that their absence of actions means that the network is invulnerable . Bitcoin sooner or later will have to comply with the laws of society , or it will face it's extinction .
|
|
|
|
|
An important factor was the number of new projects created at that time . At that time ( and earlier ) we had the ICO mania and also the separation of original protocol to branches . Another factor is the issuance of coins , bitcoin has one of the lowest "inflations" as most of the supply was issued before 2017 while others continue to increase supply with insane rates .
|
|
|
|
Φιλτατο alani123 , ολα ξεκινησαν οταν η παρεα του tether ( που περιλαμβανει πολλους απο τους μεγαλυτερους παικτες απ' οτι φαινεται απο τη δικη του Sam ) αποφασισε να εκμεταλλευθει την ευκαιρια για συντομο πλουτισμο . Μπλεχτηκε μεσα και το bitfinex που στην προσπαθεια του να σωθει απο το hack επρεπε να pumpαρει την τιμη . Τελικα το καταφεραν εκμεταλλευομενοι τη δυνατοτητα που τους εδωσε το "sidechain" του omni . Βλεποντας και η blockstream οτι "ειναι πολλα τα λεφτα Αρη" αποφασισε να μπει και αυτη στο παιχνιδι , υπο την καθοδηγηση παντα μεγαλυτερων παιχτων , αυτο λαμβανοντας υποψιν τη θεση Back για αυξηση του blocksize που απο λατρης εγινε πολεμιος . Και το sidechain σε εισαγωγικα , γιατι ο satoshi ως sidechain "ορισε" μια αλυσιδα στην οποια γινεται merged mining me to bitcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696 . Βεβαια οι maxis προσπαθουν να σε πεισουν πως sidechains ειναι οτιδηποτε πηγαινει και κουμπωνει πανω στο bitcoin ( liquid , LN κλπ ) , το οποιο ειναι μεγαλη παραμυθα . Ο satoshi ηθελε συγκεκριμενα PoW sidechains γιατι μονο εκει εισαι σιγουρος πως δε γινονται μαϊμουδιες . Και για να το θεσω αλλιως ο τελικος τους στοχος ( maxis ) ειναι να δημιουργησουν την εντυπωση πως το PoW ειναι αποτυχημενο μοντελο , να φτασουν τους miners καποια στιγμη προ τετελεσμενων γεγονοτων που δε θα ειναι κερδοφοροι και να περασει το project στη ληθη . Ευτυχως που υπαρχουν πλεον εναλλακτικες , ετσι ωστε οταν το hashrate εγκαταλειψει το btc , οι αλυσιδες που ενδιαφερονται να ειναι το bitcoin electronic cash θα ευημερησουν και θα αποδειχθει οτι το bitcoin δουλευε αψογα απο την αρχη του ως medium of exchange σε μεγαλη κλιμακα . Και επειδη τα τοπικα φερεφωνα του btc εδω θα πανε να πουν πως τα L2 ειναι διαφορετικα απο τα sidechains να αφησω κι αυτο εδω : "The Liquid Network is a Bitcoin layer-2 solution enabling the fast, confidential settlement, and issuance of digital assets, such as stablecoins, security tokens, and other financial instruments. As a sidechain of Bitcoin, Liquid allows you to move bitcoin (BTC) between the Bitcoin mainchain and the Liquid sidechain through a verifiable 1-to-1 peg." . https://help.blockstream.com/hc/en-us/articles/900002016823-What-is-the-Liquid-Network-Το προβλημα που κυριαρχει στη σημερινη κοινωνια - και κατ ' επεκταση στη κοινοτητα του bitcoin - ειναι πως εχει χαθει η εννοια του λογικου ορισμου των πραγματων . Πχ , στην εκδοση 0.01 ο satoshi ειχε δωσει την εννοια των nodes που συμβαλλουν στο δικτυο : "To support the network by running a node, select: Options->Generate Coins" https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/commit/4184ab26345d19e87045ce7d9291e60e7d36e096 . Δηλαδη , αν δεν τρεχεις node που επιβεβαιωνει συναλλαγες και κανει mining ( mining pools ) δε προσφερεις κατι στο δικτυο . Περασαν ομως την παραμυθα πως οποιο "full node" κραταει την αλυσιδα συμβαλλει στο δικτυο ( για να κανουν και τον καθε πικραμενο ηρωα ) , ενω στην ουσια ολο το δικτυο του btc ακολουθει τα specs που χρησιμοποιει σαν βαση το πιο αδυναμο node του δικτυου . Δηλαδη , μιας και μια πληθωρα των υποτιθεμενων nodes δε θελει να επενδυσει για την ασφαλεια , πρεπει ολοι να ακολουθησουμε τις συνθηκες που δημιουργει ο πιο αδυναμος κρικος με αποτελεσμα να δημιουργουμε εναν διαγωνισμο προς το ποιος ειναι ασθενεστερος σε αντιθεση με την εννοια του bitcoin που ειναι καθαρα ενας αγωνας προς το βελτιστο . Αν πχ παρακολουθησεις , θα δεις οτι απο τη στιγμη που εμφανιστηκε το bitcoin υπαρχει ενας φοβερος ανταγωνισμος για το ποιος θα δημιουργησει το πιο ανταγωνιστικο chip ( πλεον φτασαμε στα 7 nm που ηταν αδιανοητο πριν μια πενταετια και παλευουμε για τα 5 nm) . Αυτο που θελω να πω ειναι πως το bitcoin ειναι ενας ανταγωνισμος προς την εξελιξη μεσω του PoW , που οδηγει τις εταιρειες παραγωγης σε μονοπατι εξελιξης με εντυπωσιακα αποτελεσματα ( https://www.tomshardware.com/news/folding-at-home-worlds-top-supercomputers-coronavirus-covid-19 ) . Βεβαια ο cryptosize θα σου πει οτι ολα αυτα ειναι παραμυθια και αδικα ασχολειται ο κοσμος με τον covid , αλλα το φτωχο του (( ή ανυπαρκτο ) μυαλο δεν αντιλαμβανεται οτι μεσω αυτων των υπολογισμων θα δοθουν λυσεις και θεραπειες σε σπανιες ή πολυπλοκες ασθενειες . Σε γενικες γραμμες αυτο που θελουν οι maxis ειναι ενα race to the bottom , οπου ολοι θα πρεπει να ακολουθησουν τα specs του πιο αδυναμου παιχτη στο παιχνιδι για να ειναι η διαδικασια δικαιη (?) . Αν το σκεφτεις θα αντιληφθεις οτι η κοινωνια δεν εξελιχθηκε γιατι ολα λειτουργησαν "δημοκρατικα" , παρα γιατι η μειοψηφια επελεξε να λειτουργησει ανταγωνιστικα . Αν ολοι μας επιλεγαμε να λειτουργησουμε μη ανταγωνιστικα , και να παιξουμε συμφωνα με τον κανονα οτι δεν εχουμε κανενα πλεονεκτημα απεναντι στον πιο αδυναμο παικτη ακομα θα τρωγαμε βελανιδια . Τωρα στο θεμα του CSW , δε με ενδιαφερει αν ειναι ο satoshi . Εχω διαβασει ολα τα posts του satoshi , εχω διαβασει σχεδον οτι υπαρχει για τον CSW και βλεπω πως υπαρχει μια συνεχεια στη λογικη . Αυτο που με ενδιαφερει ειναι πως το bsv ειναι πολυ πιο κοντα στο οραμα που ειχε ο δημιουργος . Αν εχω δικιο ή αδικο ο καιρος θα το δειξει . Σιγουρα παντως δεν ειναι η τιμη που θα δειξει αν η θεωρηση μου ειναι σωστη ή λαθος . Και το google σε καποια στιγμη κατα το dot.com bubble ήταν το outsider αλλα αποδειχθηκε πως ηταν η υπηρεσια που η κοινωνια χρειαζοταν σε αντιθεση με τις υπολοιπες μηχανες αναζητησης που πουλουσαν φυκια για μεταξωτες κορδελες ( οτι κανει το btc σημερα λεγοντας σου πως η τιμη ανταποκρινεται στην αξια του ) . Edit : Οχι turning complete αλλα turing complete , ο ορισμος δοθηκε απο τον Alan Turing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness . Απλα στο επισημαινω με καθε φιλικη διαθεση γιατι απαιδευτα ζωντα ζωα θα ψαχνουν αφορμη να στην πουν  . Edit2 : https://vimeo.com/149035662 Συνεντευξη σε 3 μερη απο το 2014 , η εισοδος στη λαγοτρυπα . Aξιζει να τα δεις , πριν ο Vitalik αρχισει να μιλαει για ETH και smart contracts Edit 3 : https://twitter.com/napgener/status/1713197044523798849?s=20 But but , decentralised . Soon in your favorite PoW chain , |
|
|
|
Seems that btc is tur(n)ing complete(ly)  |
|
|
|
alani123 , χαιρομαι που αρχιζεις να αναρωτιεσαι για καποια πραγματα . Το πιο σημαντικο που πρεπει να σκεφτεις ειναι ποιοι θα ηθελαν να μη δουλεψει ποτε το bitcoin και να χασουν τη χηνα με τα χρυσα αυγα . Επρεπε να βρεθει μια παραμυθα πως δε δουλευει σα μεσο καθημερινης συναλλαγης και ετσι περασαν τη νοοτροπια του hodl . Το δικτυο δουλεψε ( και δουλευει ), με ταχυτατες 0-conf συναλλαγες , χωρις τη δυνατοτητα να κανεις double spend . Βεβαια τοτε το μοντελο ηταν διαφορετικο , και επρεπε να ξεγυμνωθει για να μην καταλαβει ποτε η μαζα πως η τεχνολογια πραγματικα δουλευει . Ετσι αρχισαν το "δημοκρατικο ξεγυμνωμα του κωδικα " με αποκορυφωμα τα RBF ( που στην ουσια εισηγαγε τη δυνατοτητα να κανεις double spend ) και το segwit ( για να κλεισουν τα ματια οτι αυξησαν το blocksize και να εξαλειψουν το transaction malleability που στην ουσια ειναι feature ) . Χαρακτηριστικα , ο Lopp περηφανευοταν στο twitter πως ο κωδικας εχει αλλαξει κατα 96% σε σχεση με τον αρχικο κωδικα του satoshi . Το θετικο ειναι πως ηρθε ο καιρος που αποδεικνυονται ενα ενα αυτα που ελεγαν αυτοι οι big b(ο)lockers . Αρκετοι απο τους devs του core πριν το fork ηταν υπερ της αυξησης του blocksize ( μεταξυ αυτων Adam Back και Jameson Lopp , αν θες μπορεις να βρεις στοιχεια ψαχνοντας ) . Και ξαφνικα ολοι αυτοι αλλαζουν γνωμη , εμφανιζεται μια ανταρσια ονοματι UASF που η μαζα ακολουθει τυφλα γιατι δεν ειναι εδω για την τεχνολογια αλλα να κονομησει χοντρα και να κοκορευεται για το ποσο εξυπνοι ειναι ( βλεπε have fun staying poor ) . Δε λεω , ολοι μας ειμαστε εδω και για τα λεφτα , κανενας δεν ειναι 100% ιδεαλιστης . Αλλα ειναι κριμα αυτη η τεχνολογια να μη λειτουργησει ποτε ωστε να οδηγηθουμε σε κατι καλυτερο . Αυτο που εχει σημασια ειναι πως χαθηκαν χρονια και οπως αναφερεις σημαντικο δυναμικο που δε θα ξανακοιταξει πισω . Βαρεθηκαν να ασχολουνται με υποκειμενα χωρις επιπεδο που θεωρουν τιμη τους να ειναι τοξικοι , παιδαρελια που ζουν στο υπογειο της μαμας και θεωρουν πως επιασαν τον θεο απ'τα @@ επειδη stackαρουν sats ( μα ποσο στοκοι αραγε ) . Η κοινοτητα ηταν ενα διαμαντι και κατεληξε ενα σκουπιδι . Ανθρωποι ειχαν τη διαθεση να σε βοηθησουν και πλεον κοιτανε μονο να σε κατασπαραξουν αν αρχισεις να ρωτας με λογικη . Βεβαια , αυτο συμβαινει σε ολα τα δογματα , τιποτε περιεργο . IT'S DECENTRALISED . Οσο για τον CSW , βγηκε ο τυπος σωστος σε πολλα απο αυτα που ειπε , ενα απο αυτα ειναι για το turing completeness που δεν το ειχε αναφερει κανεις ως τοτε . Αν ψαχτεις θα δεις πως εχει πεσει μεσα σε πολλα ακομη . Αλλα , καθαρματα οπως ο Vitalik και αλλοι επρεπε να τον ξεφτιλισουν στα ματια της κοινοτητας . Και ειναι ευκολο οταν εχεις αδαεις να τους κανεις οτι θελεις . Ουτε καν το τεκμηριο της αμφιβολιας , everybody is satoshi except CSW . Χωρις καν να αναρωτηθουν αν αυτα που τους πασαρουν ειναι αληθινα . Ελεγαν οτι ειναι ανιδεος με το χωρο , οποτε θα παραθεσω ενα link ( αρθρο απο το 2003 , απο το πανεπιστημιο που δε σπουδασε ποτε συμφωνα με τους maxis ) και θα κλεισω για σημερα . https://news.csu.edu.au/latest-news/science/cyber-security-research-initiative . Α , και να μην το ξεχασω , αν θες να δεις πως δουλευει το bsv και να καταλαβεις ποιες ειναι οι πραγματικες δυνατοτητες του bitcoin , κατεβασε handcash και στειλε address σε μηνυμα να σου στειλω dust για να το δοκιμασεις . Για να καταλαβεις τι σημαινει 0-conf με fees κατω απο 0,0001$ onchain . Την καληνυχτα μου . Edit. Δε λεω πως ειμαι 100% σιγουρος πως ειναι ο satoshi , αλλα το τελευταιο πραγμα για να το αποδειξει ειναι να υπογραψει ως satoshi . COPA trial κοντη γιορτη .  |
|
|
|
Well, it surely will make sense.... but why would a government agency include the paper clipping of the Bank bailout in the Genesis block? It can be possible that it might be a disgruntled government employee and that the news paper title could just be a diversion.  Bitcoin wasn't created that day , in fact it seems that it was a project developed for years . So , that message had nothing to do with bitcoin's purpose . Satoshi should have written a simpler message like the following since most people can't figure out what a timestamping message is.  |
|
|
|
 εμβαθυνοντας στο γιατι υπαρχει το καθετι ( πχ. για να αντιληφθεις οτι το bitcoin ειναι turing complete θες καποιες δεκαδες ωρες )
Κοιτα συμπτωσεις , πρεπει να ειμαι χρονοταξιδιωτης . Ή μπορει πολυ απλα να ειχα δει αυτο το video απο το 2015 https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE?t=1004 . Πανε και οι ελπιδες καποιων maxis οτι ο Szabo ειναι ο Satoshi . Προβλεψη -και προειδοποιηση - , ενα μερος του liquidity στο LN θα μεινει κλειδωμενο λογω της αυξησης ( χιλιαδες δολλαρια/tx ) των fees οταν θα ξεκινησουν τα DeFiα που θα οδηγησει σε σημαντικη αυξηση του blocksize στο btc . Αφιερωμενο  |
|
|
|
this is probably the most exciting discovery in the history of Bitcoin scripting. it seems to knock down virtually every door, giving us access to agreements, sidechains, and powers similar to liquid or evm, all at once, with no forks required. you can read the whole whitepaper from Robin Linus in the link below  https://bitvm.org/bitvm.pdfWe wasted many years as this concept was mentioned for the first time about 8 years ago . Probably i will get attacked but pointing facts isn't a bad thing https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE?t=1004 Pay attention to the part that Szabo says : " I have not heard that opinion before . I've never heard anyone call the bitcoin script turing complete , i don't believe that's accurate " |
|
|
|
1. I can't give exact definition of centralised and decentralised.
2. Number of malicious node and whether other node collude or not mostly doesn't matter since full node supposed to verify everything.
3. Even miner can perform certain attack which doesn't violate Bitcoin rule, such as selfish mining and intentionally exclude certain transaction.
1. If you can't give a definition how do you know that btc isn't centralised ? This reminds me the documentary "what is a woman" https://twitter.com/Gidi_Traffic/status/16977476796593603222. In an environment where the majority of nodes are mallicious , -i think- you will verify a false ledger . 3. If that is valid , why don't we see selfish miners and other attacks happening everyday ? No one leaves more profitability on the table , especially in that sector . Maybe there are other reasons that make pools stay honest ? |
|
|
|
I wonder if these large pools/ nodes can be geo-located? If they can be located then there is a danger of physical attack on nodes( considering if they really want to disrupt the network), another thing, is there a trustworthy source to get the IPs of these networked nodes and only connect to them?
An individual might not be able to , but everything is geo-located if big countries decide it . I'm not certain if there's a list of trusted IP's , but definitely mining pools share each other their IP's , it's for their best economic interest to being interconnected . Only "full nodes" might face that kind of attack and it doesn't matter as they cannot change the blockchain . I mean, totally false. It surely matters. Full nodes verifying the integrity of the blockchain is what's Bitcoin all about. Their incapability to change the blockchain (in terms of orders of transactions, as with miners) is irrelevant. The whole point is full nodes verifying the difficultywise-longest chain produced by honest nodes, without trusting third parties. An eclipse attack is pretty much trying to forbid you from figuring out there's a more-worked chain to verify. Miners are immune to that kind. People who merely want to verify their transactions are not. Correct and the group of people you are mentioning here are often users of light weight clients. The most fatal attack is a double-spend and that is what most people have in their heads when they hear the word "attack", but likewise an eclipse attack can as well be used to disrupt network communication and thereby delay or censor transactions. The issue with lightweight clients like Electrum or the Neutrino protocol or even the Lightning network is that they are dependent on communication with honest nodes. If those communication channels are cut off and infiltrated with malicious sybil attacks, there is all kinds of shenanigans an attacker could do. It's not necessarily the double-spend someone loses it all problem. But it could be the case for lightweight and second layer solutions. Communication with "honest nodes" is key to security of funds, aka for funds to stay with the rightful owner. To BHC , thanks to Dump3er quote as you are ignored now like your "friend" . Let's consider an example of the attack in a massive scale . Let's say that i flood the network with a massive amount of sybil nodes ( 90% ) . In that way the probability of your "full node" to be connected only to malicious nodes is very high . So your "validation" has nothing to do with the real ledger which is produced by the mining nodes . You can understand that mining nodes are unaffected by that kind of attack as they give a shit about your node . Bitcoin isn't a democratic network where everyone can change the consensus by running a "full node" . That's why it's called PoW and not PoMN( Most nodes ) . Bitcoin provided a solution to the problem of byzantine generals , not byzantine soldiers . Troops have a by far low number of generals than soldiers . Imagine a troop where every soldier would have to decide if the attack ordered should be executed . Do you think that there be a consensus ? That's what you (and most here ) don't get , that you are part of the consensus but just acknowledge it . It's like i use a bucket to take water from a river and by throwing it back i believe that i'm contributing to it's flow . But as i said to you many times , you only look bitcoin from the coding side , you can't extend your thought to the philosophical aspects behind it . To Dump3er . The problem with current model that btc uses is that there's no economic incentive for non mining nodes to be honest . If you could use a service of a honest node that gains money by earning a small amount (less than a cent ) each time you use their explorer to see if the transaction you're interested is double spent , would you use it ? Of course , with the current fee market created by the 1 MB limit that's not possible . If you could create such a node that earns you money everyday would you be interested to give fake results for a double spend that doesn't affect you at all and you don't get any profit from it , while on the other hand you would lose the profit from the service you are providing ? SPV's was the solution satoshi provided for massive scale . At some point we shall see if that model can work . If it works no one will want to use the current banking/credit system . Companies will earn insane amounts from fees in the long term as visa/MC has at least 1% fee + 10 cents per transaction . The only source of truth? Bitcoin isn't centralized.
Define centralised and decentralised . I can provide examples of a 5 nodes network that's decentralised and a 10k nodes network that's centralised . Decantralisation comes not from the number of nodes but from the incentive nodes have to not collude . Malicious node would be banned quickly, so anyone who want to run full nodes for non-malicious purpose (e.g. perform full verification, need whole blockchain data) also have incentive to be honest.
How do you know in a network flooded by malicious nodes which one is the malicious ? How do you know which one is honest ? If the truth in the network is the one provided by the malicious actor isn't the real truth false ?  Who are the only CERTAIN trusted/honest nodes in the network and why? Mining nodes because no one wants to kill the golden goose just to earn a double spend . I already know that. Although FWIW one mining pool may have multiple full nodes.
Not just multiple , multiple HONEST nodes that many for profit nodes can connect . |
|
|
|
I disagree. Imagine what would happen if full nodes by for-profit service (e.g. exchange, custodial wallet) got attacked. Their customer would have bad time (e.g. feeling uneasy their deposit never shown on the service) and it could affect their business profit/reputation. Even if the full nodes owned by individual, they would waste some time checking what's wrong with their device/full node software.
That's exactly the reason that for-profit nodes should be connected as close to the only source of truth which is mining nodes . Only mining nodes have the economic incentive to be honest by receiving rewards from subsidy and fees . Most people can't understand that even mining nodes aren't the same . Have a look at the pools history and you will notice that there are always 3-4 nodes that solve the majority of blocks . Take a look at the image and you will understand how bitcoin is designed .  |
|
|
|
Unless the isolated node is mining there is no use of doing fake tx, even if it was mining, it wouldn't accept a fake tx unless you feed it with a fake longest chain, on top of that aren't mining nodes connected to several of other trusted/ honest nodes to prevent such attacks?
If that node mines it has no problem as mining pools are interconnected to get the solved block and work on the next one as soon as possible . If that node belongs to an attacker which uses multiple "sybil" nodes it cannot attack the rest of the mining pools unless it owns the majority of them . As a pool you want to be connected with the source which is the rest of mining pools and not "full nodes" . The designed system is robust as mining nodes have economic incentive to receive and broadcast with high speeds . Only "full nodes" might face that kind of attack and it doesn't matter as they cannot change the blockchain . Bitcoin designed as a mandala network and that's why it is immune to attacks of that kind https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082 . |
|
|
|
Satoshi Nakamoto account, satoshi, was locked for security reason. That account was not banned. you know his account was banned/locked to secure the account and not be vulnerable to hacks, and if he wants to open his account again, he can just simply contact Theymos and ask for his account to be unbanned/unlocked after he provides the necessary evidence that he is actually satoshi.
My reply to both of you is that i would have to trust theymos for that , and considering his position at some point that old coins should be burned ( including satoshi's ) i don't . That's why i wrote banned/locked and not just banned as in the page fof LoyceV . https://archive.ph/DVbk7..., why should he join Twitter in 2018 instead of being active again here?
@satoshi twitter account was registered in 2007 . It was inactive from 2009 until 2018 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://twitter.com/satoshi . I have to say though that there's no proof that satoshi nakamoto registered that account as tweets were protected . |
|
|
|
Why would he use twitter when he has his own forum + community? Who would and could verify and authenticate such claims better than this community? And here we all thought he left the fate of bitcoin to the hands of people/community, yet this twitter account/ owner seems to have plans for bitcoin, well we don't want to extrapolate anything with you, it's better you go back to the same hole you were.😂
@faketoshi, I can make this post entirely different, to make people believe this is real satoshi tweeting. #shill_for_hire😉
Let's not forget that satoshi left before bitcointalk.org was created . So , even if he comes back he probably won't have the credentials to log in to this forum . He is also in a banned/locked status https://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-11_Sat_05.05h/  |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Core developers want to delay adoption as much as possible, ruining Bitcoin's reputation, because... <enter conspiracy theory>  You are the one that have said many times in this forum that the 1 MB limit isn't sane . I understand that you have to argue just to increase your post count , earn some moneyz and also please cryptosize . Don't deny it , seems that your "friend" got you by the balls  Angelo, come the fuck on, you have confessed to me personally that you visit this board (even making worthless shitposting just to raise your post count!) to advertise shady centralized mixer services and you call me biased? I don't remember shit of what I've talked with you about, we were exchanging messages for like a dozen of times a day once. The fact that you want to doxx me (by publishing my private messages) to prove a point says a lot. To be honest i was expecting from you greater things , it's sad to see a young person falling to that low level just for profit . I think community should give you neg trust , that's a serious accusation from cryptosize , so you could lose that income and maybe make you a better person ( small chances about both ) . Do maxis avoid reality as much as you avoid replying to my counter-arguments?
I have spend many hour arguing with you , but it seems that i was wasting my time just to increase your post count . I thought i had something to offer to you ( my time ) but you were taking advantage of me . I should have refute your bullshit from the start https://effectiviology.com/brandolinis-law/I know you're having troubles comprehending the technical aspect, but please give it a try.
A ledger showing every transaction doesn't make it a ledger which contains beyond basic information regarding the transaction that takes place. We don't announce if we're buying a product, to whom we transact with, our real name etc. That means you can't tell if the money really changes hands, or if money is laundered, or used illegally. Hereby, electronic cash. These levels of pseudonymity come by default, and it's technically possible to improve them further, with techniques like coinjoin.
If you've grasped that part, and you're still of the opinion that the public shouldn't have freedom to enjoy these privacy levels, then maybe you should create a Stalin fork and see who follows? I'm sure lots of politicians will support it.
What if you know the government's accounts ? Could you track how your/my/ours money are spent ? That's your problem , you only look at what benefits you . You fail to see the bigger picture . I won't waste any more time with you . Lol. Have you tried downloading the BSV-pirate-movie-chain, or are you still syncing?
No need to do it yet , if i ever create a business on bsv i will certainly do . I'm not affraid to spend pennies like you by looking when fees are down to transact |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
