Bitcoin Forum
October 27, 2021, 06:26:48 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: can't restore wallet with over 40k btc in it. Please HELP! on: November 01, 2015, 06:13:33 PM
Followup: the address in question represented Silk Road 1 profits/balances https://www.reddit.com/r/SilkRoad/comments/3r3s81/how_ulbricht_paid_100_to_learn_about_bitcoind/
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Visionary and Genious on: September 22, 2015, 04:20:08 PM
To  rpietila's observations, I would add that Bitcoin has already seen an almost Satoshi-sized dumps of coins: USG auctioning off Ross Ulbricht's SR1 coins! He had commissions of something like 600k+ BTC and the US government announced it'd be auctioning off not just the SR1 hot wallet but also all the coins seized off his laptop, for a total of 173,991btc, or almost a fifth of the Satoshi estimates (!). The Bitcoin sky has not fallen.
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BurtW arrested on: April 14, 2015, 11:15:51 PM
Is that normal? What are they protecting/hiding?

It's a little unusual. Not hugely unusual in the black-market cases I've looked at. It's routine for stuff to be sealed indefinitely and when they're unsealed, often they're boring procedural stuff with only the barest summary of the facts. For example, there was a recent OD in North Dakota linked to an Evolution buyer which resulted in the sellers also being arrested, which make up 3 or 4 different cases in PACER, and while many of the filings are sealed, there are enough unsealed complaints or plea agreements that in conjunction with news articles you can figure out most of what went on; on the other hand, there are sealed documents which turn out to be mind-blowing, like in the Ulbricht trial where we noted some interesting-sounding sealed documents filed in advance of the trial and which turned out to be about the DEA corruption/embezzlement scandal; and more usually in cases where there's informants or undercover agents, nothing gets released or the case itself is sealed/hidden - eg for the former, the digitalink case began ~Jan 2012 and he cooperated somehow and despite everyone starting to serve their sentences all the key filings are *still* sealed, while for the latter, we know from mentions elsewhere that there exist cases regarding 'dripsofacid', 'moveitnice', 'alllove', 5 NZ arrests, 'TrustusJones', 'Aspire28', Scout/'cirrus', 3 UK arrests for SR1, 6 for SR2, 'Dark_Mart' etc etc, but we know nothing about them and probably never will.

In this case, the consistency of the sealing suggests that something interesting could be in them and the prosecutors are taking pains to make sure no hints leak. Or not.
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BurtW arrested on: April 03, 2015, 05:58:21 PM
BurtW's indictment was filed on 2014 oct 07 in the US District Court for Colorado. On the same day, at least three other cryptocurrency related cases were filed in that same court, with the same special agent Arran McWhirter, with the same prosecuting attorney of Michele Korver, all offenses listed as occurring in Boulder County:

14-cr-00398 USA v Burton Wagner
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

14-cr-00399 USA v Sean Swanson
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

14-cr-00400 USA v Michael Seiler
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Money Laundering
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

14-cr-00401 USA v Katherine Noland and Thomas Noland
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
18 USC 2
Count 1: Money Laundering (Katherine)
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business (Katherine and Thomas)

Very frustrating. I just went through all 4 cases' docket reports in PACER, and for all of them, the complaints are still sealed and even the plea agreements are sealed. So I have no idea what's going on other than it was obviously a connected series of busts and sounds like it may have been black-market related.
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Help me Archive Satoshi's Emails on: June 22, 2014, 08:36:14 PM
Yes. It is condescending.

If you really want to contribute, you go and do something.

What makes you think I don't do things? I do a great many things involving the black-markets. Maybe you should try doing the whole 'not being a condescending git' thing. BTW, nice goal-post moving: you challenged me to volunteer, I did, I pointed out also previous work I've done in this vein, and now you're telling me that if I *really* want to contribute...? Whatever, man.

Hint: start with a PM to OP instead of whining about "and how much time does it take to hand them over to someone who isn't 'busy with other things'?"

A PM is no better than a public request for an update, and is a more efficient use of Hoskinson's time: instead of answering PM by PM, he can just comment here and everyone can see it. You're the one saying he's busy, shouldn't you care more about efficient use of his time? I'm fascinated by how you insist on making this about me, rather than about Hoskinson; very odd...
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Help me Archive Satoshi's Emails on: June 22, 2014, 04:39:26 PM
Are you volunteering?

Absolutely. Hand me what was collected and I will happily format them and host them on my own site - as I have already done for Wei Dai.

Go do some work and prove yourself worth listening to.

Wow, how condescending.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Help me Archive Satoshi's Emails on: June 22, 2014, 03:32:49 PM
Charles got busy with other things. Pierre Rochard et al set this up: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org

That doesn't have the emails Hoskinson collected, and how much time does it take to hand them over to someone who isn't 'busy with other things'?
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Help me Archive Satoshi's Emails on: June 21, 2014, 10:16:13 PM
Please note that your correspondence will become part of the open domain and will be eventually published in a format similar to a searchable wiki or in lectures for our crowdsourced course.

Any update on this? It's been over a year since you requested the emails, promising to post them publicly.
9  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [WHITEPAPER] Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets on: May 07, 2014, 08:18:30 PM
Quote
Will a solution like side-chains help to go in and out without liquidity concerns?

Because perfect is the enemy of better.
10  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [WHITEPAPER] Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets on: April 30, 2014, 07:12:55 PM
BUT  this is not the issue I am talking about here.
The Truthcoin layer is utterly unnecessary for the PM! The prediction market (PM) exists in its own layer, following its own rules and inputs… The TRC layer is added below it only to take 50% of the trading fee. TRC does not provide backing or input feed to the PM layer.(or any other usefulness to the PM layer that I can think of) It exists to serve its own existence and follows its own rules for shares redistribution -rules that decide who will get more of the next round commissions from the PM’s trades…
Let me put in different way being right or wrong how the others will vote determines how much you will get from the next trading fees on the PM. I still do not get what utility of truthcoin entitles it (its holders) to those fees in the first place.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Let me try to explain the chain of reasoning and maybe you can specify where you object.

Prediction markets are obviously useful, so that's not your problem.

Centralized prediction markets are useful, but not as useful as they could be - since just like all centralized services, they can be attacked, self-regulate into uselessness, or corrupt: IEM survives in the USA only by being useless, and Intrade illustrate both the weakness to attack (by the CFTC and US government in general) and corruption (embezzlement by employees drove it into insolvency).

Hence, a decentralized prediction market, where embezzlement is impossible, where USG cannot regulate it to death, is highly desirable and likely necessary if we are ever going to get very large liquid prediction markets with contracts on many things of importance to the world.

Now, it's relatively obvious how to implement most of a decentralized prediction market on a blockchain: the currency part is like Bitcoin, the contracts and purchases are doable with public keys. The one part which is not obvious is: how are contracts judged? This is very important since it's where the rubber hits the road and the prediction market is forced to mirror the real world and keep being anchored to facts. If the judging isn't done well, the prediction market will be completely useless.

You could have one person appointed to judge. They sign a message etc. But now you've reintroduced centralization and allowed for corruption or coercion: the judge can simply buy up a bunch of shares on the losing side, which will be cheap because they're going to lose, and judge the opposite of truth, and make a ton of money. If they've become trusted enough to judge many contracts, they get a nice big 'exit scam'. As the black-markets show with centralized escrow, this can sort of work, but it still isn't great, and it limits the growth of prediction markets: no one is going to invest, say, $10m of capital if it can all be stolen by one judge pulling an exit scam.

This sort of partially-decentralized prediction market might work, but it's not a very compelling vision and that may be part of why no one has done it. If you're willing to trust the judge not to scam you, you might as well go use Bets of Bitcoin or another Bitcoin betting service: they'll scam you at some point, but at least it'll be a conveniently-done scam.

How could you improve on this? Well, what if there were some way to 'spread out' judging across a lot of people? And incentivize them to judge honestly? And to defect against any conspiracy to manipulate votes? *That* is what Truthcoin tries to do. And that's the value that the SVD part of Truthcoin delivers: it removes the last and large part of centralization, producing a prediction market system you can genuinely rely on and not worry about being attacked by the government, embezzling employees, corrupt judges, etc.
11  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [WHITEPAPER] Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets on: April 30, 2014, 06:14:45 PM
Read the white paper! (several times) 
Great Idea! Well almost…

Let me get some things straight.
So the owners/voters try to guess what the others vote will be, and not what the actual outcome would be! Their incentive is vote with the majority not to guess correctly! If they want to gain by correctly predicting the outcome they must become traders! I.e. bet correctly not vote for the correct outcome.

That seems like a severe oversimplification, akin to describing the stock market as nothing but 'buying based on how you think others will buy'. Yes, there's elements of a Keynesian beauty contest, but the fundamentals still exist: dividends are paid out or not, companies go bankrupt or not, and any traders who are totally unmoored from reality will discover that the hard way.

The easiest way to predict the resolution the majority will choose is to simply look at what the reality is. *Was* Obama elected? *Did* Putin invade Russia? etc. The truth is the Schelling point for all voters; how do conspirators know which way to vote on what contracts? Their communication will be unreliable and harder than the truthful voters, who merely have to look at a data source to decide; combined with the incentive for each of them to defect and screw over their co-conspirators, this produces a fundamental bias towards the majority voting for the true outcome, which produces a fundamental that voters must acknowledge or lose money, which anchors the prediction markets & prevents them from spinning off into navel-gazing.

Just like Bitcoin: if you can trust the majority of hash power (vote power), you're fine. If you can't, you're not.
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Chain Archaeology - Answers from the early blockchain on: April 03, 2014, 05:44:28 PM
Quote
It seems that both satoshi and the first early adopter (who picked up block 12) have stopped mining shortly after Jan/09/2009 04:33:09 [3PM EST]. Bitcoin was essentially dead for 24 hours, until satoshi put his rig back on (and in doing so, reset his extraNonce and begin the next iteration) and found block 15 on Jan/10/09 04:45:46 [3PM EST]. (He then found block 16, an impressive 12 seconds later (a record at the time.))
I'm not certain why satoshi mined block 0 on the 3rd, and then waited for the 9th to release the client. There's probably a good reason, but we'll see. Maybe.

...Edit 16:14. From the data I've got so far, January 10 is cut in half. Bitcoin "died" again at around 7 AM [6AM EST], to be revived at 3:30 PM [2PM EST], 8 hours later.

Odd timings. Why would Satoshi drop out at 3PM and not restart for an entire day, then next drop out at 6AM and revive at 2PM? If 3PM was in his local time at night and something caused his computer to stop (a bug, perhaps, or network problem; has happened to me many times with overnight runs of something), then what caused a stop halfway around the clock at 7AM, which would likely be during the day?
13  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: satoshi response on: March 18, 2014, 01:22:39 AM
He had a draft copy Smiley

Did you keep a copy? I've been asking around, but apparently no one kept a copy of the original draft Satoshi put on upload.ae. It'd be a pity if the draft was lost to history.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Silk Road: Trail of 11,329.89BTC on: March 09, 2014, 11:16:29 PM
1933x is on the move! Entire balance transferred to https://blockchain.info/address/15ihHoGs3onQBNnEH8afDFGvou9nD62Hm7 , and then split in half to send to https://blockchain.info/address/1K191X5eVSRzeecaPQYGgTAbB7NTbqxDTJ and https://blockchain.info/address/1HR42TZ27gSAQUiLEyT7bVThqi5ZbadVie

What's going on? Ross Ulbricht is still in jail, the apparent plea bargain fell through, and the FBI seized his stuff months ago, they should've finished with it.

EDIT: Reddit discussion: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2004fg/111k_coins_just_moved_any_information_on_this/ ; it looks like the coins have stopped moving for now, and have been split across three addresses now: https://blockchain.info/address/1K191X5eVSRzeecaPQYGgTAbB7NTbqxDTJ / https://blockchain.info/address/1DxQdDV6LPjoimiM9MpBBckQKAeeodmKDE / https://blockchain.info/address/15wJARB79G6WMeLbfy8W2nKX8EdeS32DTA
15  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Strange file found on: March 09, 2014, 02:50:01 AM
Hi,

I posted this elsewhere, which was probably the wrong place so sorry for double post, but..

I found a file called DdRBXW4v.exe.part in my firefox download directory which contains the log below. I should note, that this was found on a mac and that I do not have bitcoin client installed.
I hope someone here could help me understand how did this file end up on my mac.

Fortunately, I can resolve your perplexity. You have, it seems, somehow downloaded an old debug.log generated by Hal Finney during the early days of Bitcoin. See http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/thread/da7b3ce30901101113v2ec6bf61xf018265479eb7faf%40mail.gmail.com/#msg21295694

You can verify that the debug.log he posted is the same by reading it carefully: for example, notice the string 'hal' in both debug.logs. Also, look at the lines for 'GetMyExternalIP' - it seems unlikely that both you and Hal would both have been assigned the same IP at any point!
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi ruined a poor man's life on: March 07, 2014, 02:43:06 AM
There are numerous people named Satoshi Nakamoto.

Name at least one..

The Newsweek article described several in the USA. You can find like 6 people on LinkedIn. You know how to use a search engine.
17  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [WHITEPAPER] Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets on: March 05, 2014, 01:35:36 AM
It might be better to use more standard terms... You can see a prediction market as a ensemble method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_learning which weights experts (users) by their cumulative score (money) on a series of predictions using a proper scoring rule of some sort. This interpretation has been explored by a number of papers: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22prediction%20market%22%20ensemble
18  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [WHITEPAPER] Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets on: February 20, 2014, 03:21:41 AM
Now, it's true that the lucky monopolist who ended up as the Bill Gates of data feeds probably doesn't have an incentive to screw it up on purpose, and it probably won't be too bad in practice. Often the winners of natural monopolies are pretty good at their jobs - Windows isn't all that bad... But I doubt this is what the designers intend. You have a lot of cost and complexity with all the voting stuff to make the decisions about outcomes decentralized, but then you end up with a de-facto centralized structure anyway, and worse a centralized structure that's hard to fix if it goes bad. If you knew you were going to end up with authorities anyhow I think there would be simpler, more robust ways to do settlement. (For example, skip the voting and let people specify a list of settlement authorities in the contract and a protocol to choose between them if they diverge. That puts your settlement authorities in self-correcting free-market competition as you describe for contracts, rather than lumbering you with the one who won the battle to be the de-facto go-to guy.)

That sounds like my scenario. The voters either notice the bad data coming in and ignore it when voting (similar to how people stopped paying attention to MtGox as it kept fucking up, and a scenario which doesn't require such pervasive incompetence on the part of voters as to enable the data source to do a 51% attack by proxy) or they do a bad vote and then people subsequently issue better markets worded to forbid use of the untrustworthy data source.
19  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [WHITEPAPER] Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets on: February 20, 2014, 02:21:08 AM
I don't doubt that the market can sort out the problem of ambiguous or badly-worded contracts (to within reasonable tolerances) but that's not the problem I'm talking about. The key innovation in this proposal is to use a p2p system of consensus witnesses to settle the contracts. It looks to me like the p2p system will collapse into de-facto centralization, at which point the incentive system, which is supposed to be designed to incentivize getting to true outcomes, will actively prevent the market from correcting.

Alright, you didn't like my concrete example of why the system can be self-correcting; so could you offer a concrete scenario of how an existing prediction market contract from Intrade or somewhere could collapse into a perverse equlibrium? (Being partially centralized is not a bad thing: Bitcoin mining is pretty centralized these days. I don't mind if everyone is getting their figures from an authority like the BLS.)
20  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [WHITEPAPER] Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets on: February 20, 2014, 02:02:09 AM
This is actually a problem with a lot of situations where you are punished for getting out of line with the consensus. The market tends to settle on a winner early, usually the one that's easiest to get started with, then has a hard time switching off it, even when everybody can see that there are better options. MS Windows, PHP, Mt Gox, QWERTY keyboards, cities built on geological faults, etc etc etc. But this is built with a much stronger incentive to stay with the consensus than any of those, and actually deliberately discourages a coordinated attempt to switch to something else, so people may be stuck in the city even as they watch it burn...

I'm not sure this is as serious a problem as you think it is. I have a fair bit of practical experience with prediction markets (see http://www.gwern.net/Prediction%20markets ), and in the one I am currently competing on, the Good Judgment Project (part of the IARPA competition), there have already been some issues with judging and data sources. They still work. I'd expect the problems to be self-correcting (although I'm still reading the papers so I could be misunderstanding something).

So, suppose John Doe releases an annual contract for annual American GDP growth > 3%. It's the only such contract because it seems so straightforward and clear. Everything is going fine until one year, the number comes in on a knife's edge: if the GDP figure is seasonally adjusted, it's 3.01% and the bulls win, and if it's raw, it's 2.9% and the bears win. The right figure is seasonally adjusted since the non-adjusted version will be predictably wrong when the truly final figures come in years later, *but* everyone is terrified of 'the crowd' not understanding this subtlety, taking the raw number that all the newspapers are trumpeting, and punishing them for disagreeing, so they all vote for 2.9% and the correct forecasters are screwed.

And next year the same thing happens and the prediction market is terrible and cats are living with dogs?

No, not really. Next year, John Doe, having learned from the fiasco, will issue his next version with the tweaked wording 'American *seasonally-adjusted* GDP growth is >3%'. The problem disappears. Alternately: John Doe doesn't learn & does nothing differently, and instead, Jack Frost, angrily remembering how he was burned last year, issues his own variant; now the crowds have a clear interpretation of both contracts: Doe's contract is raw, and Frost's is seasonally-adjusted. Savvy predictors flock to Frost's.

Since everyone can create contracts, good contracts drive out bad ones.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!