off topic, but you know lemmings don't jump off cliffs? Disney got a literal truck load of them and tipped them off the back of the truck and over a cliff...

cool, eh! seems even more applicable now... hurm are crypto-lemmings the opposite of crypto-whales?

anyway no idea why I'm still in this thread.

toodles.

I will assume you are arguing from a point of good faith, and want to have a discussion on this matter.  I will address your points before I explain why bitcoin is not a Ponzi.


okay I watched it, it is oversimplified to the point of being wrong. numbers are abstract concepts not physical things. 2 apples are apples, the thing is the apple.

The numbers stuff at the start is over simplified and misses a lot of extra information.  for example it does not cover the number zero. this number represents two completely different mathematical concepts.  first - it represents nothing. as in 6 - 6 = 0. second (and this is why we dont use roman numerals) it represents a place holder amount of some multiple of 10.  i.e. 1, 10, 100, 1000. Then you have 0/0, or 10/0, or 0/10 these are all different mathematical objects. (this list is not exhaustive, just some examples)

It does not cover negative numbers. these are even more abstract and harder to understand than 0, yet essential to their argument of debt.  however they get around this with their ledger example by using headings labelled "assets" and "liabilities"

seeing as their premise is twisted to suit their narrative I am going to ignore the video and address your points instead.


Can you explain who is obligated to pay back monies printed by quantitative easing? This is a very important point and a fundamental of bitcoin. so much so it is in the coinbase of the first ever mined block. - rule 1 of bitcoin

Also, how does fractional reserve banking work..? where do those dollars come from? they 100% do not exist, they are just numbers on a screen. yet real dollars have to be made to pay them back.  can you see the issue with this? you understand this is rule 2 of bitcoin.


again, who has to pay the dollars for the subprime loans? those dollars don't exist. that money can never be returned.  more money is owed than is in circulation.


not sure of your point, I think you are misunderstanding the "dollars must be accepted as settlement for debt" part of legal tender.  Dollars have to be accepted otherwise the government would not have control of its own economy. you can accept other things, but you must accept dollars, or instruments representing dollars. but I might be misunderstanding your point


where did the money to pay back the loan defaults on the sub prime market come from?  what about securities (ie a house) that become negative equity? just because a property is seized doesn't mean dollars magically appear, especially when they never existed in the first place.  like I said before your premise is false.


No, you must accept dollars as a minimum for repaying debt.  I could ask for skittles...  Also note cheques, postal orders and postage stamps are all legal tender for settlement of debt.  are they Ponzi schemes?


we don't use the gold standard anymore, or am I missing your point?  What is the intrinsic value of a dollar bill and where/who can I reclaim that from?  [I'm from the uk, and it says on our notes "I promise to pay the barer on demand the sum of x pounds"  This is a direct reference to its gold value. in theory I could go to the bank of England and demand 10gbps worth of gold. obviously this is now just tradition.]

isn't gold a strong counter example to your point about debt and fiat?  Is gold a Ponzi too?


Does gold originate from debt? your paragraph here is completely true, but I have never seen anyone ever claim otherwise with bitcoin.  you cant force someone to accept bitcoin as settlement for debt, but so what? you cant force someone to accept gold as settlement for debt.

How about if someone DOES want to accept cryptos in exchange for goods, how does that make anything bad? do you own any alpaca socks? just because it is not government based and not debt based doesn't mean it has no value.  Barter is still legal.  again I think you are conflating "you must allow debts to be settled in dollars" with "debts must be settled in dollars." they are not the same. The second statement is a false statement.


What? really? No that is investment, and risk.  I have hope and faith that someone will exchange my computer skills and cryptography skills for fiat money or economic goods. Is working a job by definition a Ponzi scheme? you don't know what a Ponzi is or you don't know what the word definition means.... Now I am starting to think you are arguing in bad faith.  Still hopefully this post will help someone.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ponzi%20scheme


Can you please show how bitcoin fits this definition of a Ponzi...


again utility can be used as a measure of value, like toothpicks.  just because I may not see that value, or it may not have any direct bearing on my life it does not mean it doesn't for someone else.


cryptos have very high utility, just because you cant see it or understand it, it doesn't stop it from being there.  I don't know how to fly a plane, I can still understand that it has value.

Have you ever managed to buy a meal with toothpicks?


cryptos are not a zero sum game. ponzis are. stocks can have volatility, why is that proof it is a Ponzi?

and there can be enforceable contracts, you are just making stuff up now.  The main purpose of a government is to enforce private contacts. those contracts can be about cars, houses, bitcoin, sheep, who will win the football, etc

So the whole point of this is "I don't understand why people value cryptos, therefore they are a scam!".  All the stuff you outlined above is true, but it doesn't stop it having utility.  and utility has intrinsic value (think work has value), it is just not the same a fiat.  this is the whole point of crypto.

im not claiming anything magic about bitcoin in this i am just showing how you are wrong with your claim. im open to discussion though.


edit: despite what a lot of bitcoin and crypto advocates say, crypto is meant to compliment the banking system, not replace it - imho.

cheers,

steve

hello.

at the risk of sending you off into another rant, is your point that cryptsy engineered this whole situation? (Have you heard of Hanlons Razor?)

because to me, it seems that you saw a bug, and rather than reporting it and not taking more than you own, you took out more than you owned.

the withdrawal software noticed (you even make this point by refilling the extra DC you took, so you could get the bigger prize)
then the balances of withdrawn diamond and btc go past what you actually own so you cannot take any more out.
you realise you cant take coins out but you can still trade, so you buy an extra 1.7k PHS?
diamond coin surges in price - you do not _want_ to repay the higher price so you go full-on-apeshit.

So the issue is more PHS didnt go up in price and diamond did. putting you in a position where you do not _want_ to pay the extra to level the diamond balance for the diamond coins that you did not own but still withdrew?

Is that a fair summary? I apologise in advance in case I am wrong.

I know they shouldnt have bugs and you have been burnt before, but I think if you were a little more mature in your thinking and a little less with the caps and the colours and the fonts and the hysteria you would  have probably done better. I dont know though, cryptsy needs to balance their books, those extra coins did actually belong to another person and not cryptsy - they were (rubbish) facilitators. so if you dont pay it back that person will either go without or someone else will have to pay.  (ala ponzi)

If you had not taken more than you owned you would not have had the negative balances...

Oh and they have not stolen you, they have stolen /from/ you. stealing you would be kidnapping.

anyway good luck! and remember all exchange owners have their price...

wait a tick, so phinn is the only person who gets to hear what you say? he has asked the questions in this thread. why not answer them here? (please)

So, he has asked (in a fairly roundabout way) a couple of good questions. and you dont answer them but just say it was all fair and good. then say call me in june i might answer then, but only for you...

It is not just PG who is interested in the answers, hence the number of replies in this thread.

cheers,
steve

(btw, the postal thing is backward and easily duped - but hey ho, i guess it is not my problem. unfortunately bitcoin has bigger problems than tbf...)

edited to fix formatting.
this post wasnt meant to be demanding or rude, but if you are going to give info out (which you suggested you would) i would appreciate it if we could all hear.

(disclaimer -this is the first I have heard about this project)

I dont know about that... it doesnt have to be backdoored for those situations to arise. hanlons razor n all that.

what about stuff like diff power analysis and van eck [radiation]? how susceptible is the device to interference over the usb? or a radio transmitter or just a mobile phone.   anyway if the trezor cannot guard against a malicious PC that it is connected too, whats the point? You wouldnt be connecting it to a POS/PDQ in a hurry... so it is just another thing to go wrong - how many key pairs does it create?  I lost bitcoins before when the send change to new/random address 'bug' was squashed and the change address wasnt in my backup keypairs. (damn you satoshi dice and me for not reading the release notes)

Another avenue is via some basic firmware bug that allows a different amount to be displayed rather than what it is actually asked to be signed... I trust the creators intentions, but this shit is hard to get right - very hard. not knocking anyone but bugs are bugs... I think this attack would be slightly more dangerous than bypassing the sign conformation prompt. am I correct in thinking that the wallet cannot be passworded? maybe a simple left button x times, right button y times would be useful.

I am probably never going to own one though so wont be able to do this kinda testing on it.  good luck though guys.  I fear the plastic ones might be a bit more damageable from outside noise.

would you show me images of the inside? I would love to know the part numbers. is it easy to disassemble?

I have some good schematics for noise generators (which I have made and use) if this even vaguely interests you? guessing not, but maybe the team (slush et al) might be. hit me up.  I can also help with anti tamper (so someone breaks it open, or tries to shave bits off the outside it will purge the secret keys and any other sensitive info - so if it is lost/stolen there is another layer of defence. (potting [setting in resins] would also help, interweave a metal for a mini faraday cage...) - there are also greater options that provide massive security leaps. (dual cypher, dual implementation of cypher, thermo based rng, etc)

We (mistfpga) looked at doing a bitcoin HSM/PayShield type device then the other two got bored with it and went back to breaking things shame really. but we are more a small group of hardware/software hackers with a strong bias towards crypto.

anyway good work guys.  I wish you all the luck. and thanks for posting mike, you got me thinking.

cheers,

steve.

Hi,

This is my understanding of how bitcoin works. If i am misunderstanding how transactions work, please someone correct me. Also this is only about mtgox... not how malleability works in general.


I agree that more users should be fully aware as to the implications of malleability, but they are documented and somewhat limited. Developers have no excuse for not being fully aware.

I think "an open wound" is a bit excessive. this is not bitcoins fault. bitcoin gives you the rope to hang yourself, it is up to you if you do that or not.  irreversible transactions and  accidentally large transaction fees are other examples of things that could be seen by some as a 'bug' or flaw in the bitcoin code. they are not.

Trusting unsigned inputs (like transaction ID, whilst not directly controllable it is certainly modifiable.) as signed inputs is such a basic mistake - I mean really really basic.  like not pulling your trousers and underwear down before you go for a shit.

Block chain bloat, overly complex legacy that needs to be supported, almost obfuscated reference code and a very steep learning curve are open wounds. (that are healing, slowly...)

[/quote]

Yeah, but that is missing the point, there has to be 3 transactions for gox's story to hold true (even though two of them spend the same funds/are the same transaction)
- the initial transaction,
- the double spend (which must be mined before transaction 1.)
- the reissue of funds in transaction 1 by the original issuer.  it is this reissue that would set alarm bells off. (and why not reissue the _same_ funds they claim not to have received? maybe you'd have to run a multimillion dollar business and have a track record for successful technical ventures to check for that sort of thing.)

makes me wonder why the accountants did not flag the discrepancies between the sale of coins, transaction reissues and actual stock levels. they must have been doing zero stock checking for their story to hold true. (or the 'attack' was spotted very quickly) This is not even a technical thing, it is a bean counter thing. (the stock checks will not show what the issue is, just their is a major problem... _everything_ is accountable it is all right there in the block chain - bitcoin is an accountants wet dream.)


Not in the thread you linked, he even specifically states they are not connected. interesting idea though. (you would probably make more money just selling drugs...)



I think the not relaying of transactions is a distraction technique. same for the unsticking of transactions, anyone could verbatim supply the transaction to a pool they know will mine it.  Mining rules are different to passing of transaction rules.  There is no reason not to mine nonstandard transactions if you see them.


maybe, however even now it shouldnt be a big deal. gox's custom code would relay the transactions, so gox would have to be not connected to the major mining pools... this seems absurd at best. the padded transactions will be included in the next block. there is no reason not to mine them, just not to transmit them.

The best an attacker could hope for would be to connect to the same pools, but they are still massively disadvantaged because they have to see the transaction second, modify it, and get it into the transaction pool ahead of the transaction they got from the transaction pool...  for gox's account to be true the attacker would have to see the broadcast before the pools. That is until anyone can up the fees on a transaction... but that is a different can of worms. (and a really bad idea.)

So the attacker is left with having to see the transaction in memory at a major pool then modify it and pass it to another pool that gox is not connected too and hope that pool hits a block first. Unless the pools decide not to mine nonstandard transactions (not rational)

gox would never have a transaction propagation issue no matter how nonstandard yet valid their transactions are.  However this changes when we get the ability to pay for fees on other peoples transactions, making the attack easier. (assuming higher fees are more likely to appear in blocks)


I would be tempted to think this was Gox implementing a 'fix'.  A good willed person does not need to modify the transaction to be helpful, just relay it to the pools that gox doesnt talk too (okay if you arent up on bitcoin attacks, unless gox hasnt heard of a sybil attack https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses they are connected to well over 75% of the mining power, hence me banging on about it.  if 1% have an issue, it is an infinitesimally small chance you will be able to out race it.) you dont need to strip the zeros.


I am not sure what you mean by era's but the issue isnt as passive as it seems. there is a difference between the rules for relaying transactions and the rules for including a transaction in a block. the attack relies on the attacker being able to send the modified transaction to the mining pools before they see the original transaction. the network propagation rules only apply to people without custom software to craft the transactions and direct connections to the major pools. technically it could have been going on the whole time.  the original transaction most likely never made it to the network if they really were attacked.


I agree completely. the story as told (have gox given an official response? I saw gesticulating and general flapping on their blog but nothing concrete.) cannot be possible.

There is a lot less than 1% chance. so much so it puts it out of the hands of even medium players.

There are other methods to take advantage of the coding error that I can think of, but they all need more access...  the only semi reasonable answer is either someone
1) MITM the connections to the major pools and rewrote every transaction, and dropping the original ones thus guaranteeing your transaction is seen first.
2) Own the transaction server, rewriting every transaction and dropping the original before it is even broadcast.

I cant wait for them to have thier solution implemented (it would seem that they have passed the trust to block explorer and block explorer say yay or nay. lol. idiots.)

Hope this helps? sorry if it goes on a bit.  but as far as I know you cannot 'update' a transaction.

Isnt that exactly what I said anyway a decent remote will land you a six figure one time paycheck... The OP wasnt trying to sell for/to the blackmarket, he is trying to get bitcons for bugs, rather than usd.  so he can remain anon - a lot of background checks are done by pentest companies.  3com and idefense are useless, more than useless and a rip off.  as my experience with another very vocal member of the security community..  there are few pros like 3APA3A around anymore. do not use them. but then I was never a scene kid.... those that can do, those that cant talkabout it.

as a tip, look at using beyond security, they are good people - contact them first with your 0-day. then there is argensis they are also trustworthy lastly try NGS, none of these companies are shady and will pay 6 figures for the right bug.

anyway, seeing as you have so much experience in this (please dont be skylined - and yes I know why you are called skylined, so no bullshitting, you still owe me a pint!!)

good luck.

I can broker this for you.  I have sold 0 daze to people like iDefense and Tipping point (ms apps mainly) however I have sold linux remote code executions for in excess of $80,000 (to pen test companies) I have numerous links into companies that will be of great help to you.  I can either introduce you or act as a middleman.  I do not mind. generally I sell to three companies, all of whom I know personally.  I am based in the uk.  But these companies are not.

There are some questions that need answering before you can work out who to approach.  - if push comes to shove I would be happy to buy it for bitcoin, then sell it for usd.

Is the exploit
Things that lower the price:
Remote interaction needed (visiiting a website, clicking ok, running a spesific word doc,  or popular app addin)
Service pack or kernel version specific
If windows, it has to be on something big, like any apple app, word, bitcoin, default installed programs, web browsers, kernel exploit.
Is it a post auth exploit?
Does ASLR or DEP get in the way?
32 bit only?

I dont want to get your hopes up, but unless it is unauthenticated, no interaction bug that is for the linux kernel (general branch), windoze kernel and/or win xp- 8 compatible, ie 7,8 and 9. you are probably not looking at much more than 15,000 usd maybe less.

my PGP public key is at pgp.mit.edu id: 0x5016FB50 my email is steve at mist fpga d o t net

I sell more than 10 zero days a year, to independent pentest companies.  Please contact me if you want more advice, contact details and or help with the shellcode (weaponised are the only type pentest companies take)

I am not going to list my clients on a forum (and yes I have sold 1 bug to idefense and 2 to 3com, shoot me, I dont give a shit, if coders can earn millions for being shit at thier jobs, why cant testers sell exploits?)

EDIT: you will have to trust a company somewhere along the line, whilst they checkout the exploit which is why I have my 3 companies. a lot of others (with 'security gurus') screw me like a bitch before.  it is a  jungle out there.

my offer is 900,000 adt.

you mean like hire purchase? or weekly payment store? or catalogue clubs? 

for example
http://www.brighthouse.co.uk/televisions/lg-full-hd-42-led-smart-cinema-3d-tv/

How does ADT fit in?  You talk about it like a service like netflix, but we already have netflix - and I am not sure netflix needs its own coin. You also talk about it like it is somehow a low weekly payment superstore, again I am not sure how having its own coin would benefit someone like brighthouse.

What is your involvement with the project? are you responsible for the direction of the coin?


I tried, it really doesn't 'look fine' nor does it 'make sense'.

peace...

steve

: wall of text hits you for 100 points, you are dead...

I have no idea what any of this means. are you high? why would someone want to sell their electronics at cost? what is activated?

im not knocking you, you might have a great idea... I work in electronics manufacturing so maybe i could help (if i had a clue what on earth you are on about)

peace...

steve

Heh, thanks - I didnt notice that before, but yeah when I change it to UK it then asks for my VAT number.

Sorry about that - I cant see how I missed it earlier.

On with the show...

Hi,

First off, congratulations, nice work

EDIT: scracth the stuff below, i was being blind, it was on the website when you change the delivery country.
=====


Sorry this is a bit of a boring post about VAT.

I have a UK VAT registered business, and I assume you are ALV registered in Finland (I think any company that does business worth more than 35k has to be ALV registered).  Importing to a VAT registered business should be VAT free within the EU VAT zone.

Anyway, it seems the import laws are a bit crap in this area, and a UK company cannot put a claim in to the Finnish govt to claim the tax back. The only solution that is reasonable is we exchange registration numbers and you not to charge me VAT.  

Is there a mechanism for this so I dont get stung for 24% I cannot claim back...?

from
(about halfway down the page)
http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/vat-uk-finland/

(also I think but am not 100% sure, but because it needs assembly it might not incur uk VAT at all, but I am not an accountant nor lawyer - and for me it doesnt matter I can claim the UK VAT back anyway from the UK government, Cant put a claim into the Finnish govt tho.)


Thanks,

Steve

yes, but which ground? it always takes the path of least resistance... hence in my example 1 - grounds back to the supplying psu, 2- grounds into psu 1, which inturn would dump back into psu 2, or psu 1 will continually draw current from psu 2, getting greater and greater until something goes pop and the magic smoke escapes.

also it doesnt have to ground 0v (7volting fans is an example of 12v -> 5v) the thing is, without better knowledge of switching power supplies, or how pci-e connectors are attached to the motherboard I am just guessing.

remember I am not talking about powered risers in this example, but the things that connect a molex directly to the pci slot... like the EVGA powerboost (i mistakenly referred to is as an XFX product) There is an image of it installed halfway down along with some evidence it stabilises and boosts the 12v rail.  I can see how this would work if you use just one psu.  My question is what happens if one psu is powering this and another the rest of the motherboard.

unless I am overthinking it... I have some spare mb's and psus so i guess I will find out soon

How about with two psu's? one low powered controlling the motherboard, 24pin + 4pin cpu (psu 1). then using a different psu to power the gpus 6pin power sockets and "pcie plugin power thing" (psu 2).

it is 1x so you can pump ~ 6 amps into the slot, I can see one of 3 things happening;

1 - the ground on the "pcie plugin power thing" just grounds the 12v you are pumping in (from psu 2), so the psu is just powering that one slot, effectively doing nothing, and potentially burning the socket and/or psu.

2 - The big psu (2) is now dumping 6 amps into the low powered psu, whilst sucking 6 amps of the socket, effectively doing nothing but stressing both psus and the socket (potentially burning all three out)

3 - By some magic the switching supplies cope and everything works how it is supposed to.

it is a shame that XFX have blurred the backside of their connector.  if anyone can post images of both sides and what pins are attached, I will make one, try out the above, and see what happens

I was thinking of this too, use the cpu connector on the psu powering the gpu 6 pin connectors, but I think that is its own circuit. my other idea was to use the 20 pins of the 250 seasonic to power the atx and use the cpu 4pin, then use the 4pin extra atx (the bit that actually powers the pci-e) off the big psu (I have not checked what the other pins are and if this is plausible)...

However, I plugged a 6950 in to a 1x riser with the back drilled off, this was not attached to the motherboard. I then confirmed that B1, B2, B3, A2 and A3 are all on the same circuit (using a voltmeter set to ohms) then verified all the ground are connected.  I then striped these wires and soldered onto a 20awg.  I took only the three grounds in front of the slot (B4, B7 and A4) and soldered these to a 20awg wire.  put a molex connector on the end (female plastic, male pins).

Now, no matter which psu I attach it to, it only grounds through that psu, as far as i can tell. (I am now using a 430 antec neo as the mb psu because it is more likley to be able to handle the overcurrent/wattage)  The 430 antec (powering 24pin atx, 3 pci slots and 4pin cpu) did not pull more any more watts than if the 4th card was not connected.  Also the volts stayed ~240v - so it would appear to work. And if I did add it to a molex on the 430 antec psu the psu would auto shutdown after 3-4 mins when the fans started to make proper noise.  All hashrates were rock solid though.

NOTE: the antec is only rated for 384 watts on the 12v it auto shutsdown around 405 watts. (it was hitting this)

I would not advocate anyone try this, I still have a lot more experimentation to do, but I need to wait until I can get access to better testing equipment and mike (who actually knows real things about proper electronics - I just guess ) and to be completely honest I am not that sure I am interpreting the results correctly.  I will find out tomorrow...

That is fine if you use a single psu. ground is ground is ground. makes no odds, and the slots are spec'd high enough on most mbs to happily allow 75 watts grounded into the socket without issues.

However, my situation is a little different:
I use a 250 watt seasonic to power the motherboard and pci-e slots. the psu has 22amps on the 12v.
I use a 750 watt seasonic psu to power the cards.
In my 4 slot motherboards (4 x 16)
Whith these motherboards I use a slightly higher spec psu (again a seasonic,14a and 15a over two rails)
I am using underclocked semperons
A very small ubuntu install (copied from bamt)


Now no matter what psu I use for the motherboard, slot 4 never gets enough juice if all 4 slots are full. (hashrate is normally rocksold 492.1) add a 4th card in slot 2 (0-3) this now hashes full speed and the 4th card jumps between 390 and 441.  So I need a powered riser.  But I need to connect the grounds up on the riser, I cannot risk the 750 watt psu grounding into the 250.

Do the 12v and 3v have different grounds? (there are 3 ground on the front notch) is each ground for something else?  I guess it wont take too long to workout, an inline multimeter should do the trick. I only have two old cards though, still hopefully it wont blow the card.

Does this sound reasonable? do you know anyone who has a schematic for a card with ground connected on the riser. in the pic on cablesaurus it looks like B4 and or B7 leaving out A4. although B4 and A4 makes slightly more sense, but this is just guesswork.  am I trying to fix an nonproblem (letting the card ground from teh 750 into the 250 - every fibre of my being says no)

cheers

steve

The problem as I see it, and why i am still searching for risers that have a ground connected, is what happens when you use two psu's? (one psu with risers should have no problems at all, however watch what you are pulling on the molex lines.)

I use two psu's one seasonc 250 watt (22 amps on the 12v - and can happily pull 300-340, auto shuts down around 360watts) and a 750 seasonic as the power for the gpu's (4x6950 shader unlocked, 1.1v)

Using a motherboard with 4 16x slots, I didnt need powered risers for the 5830's but the 6950's need them after 3 cards (even with full slots) - anyway, my worry is that I am adding power from the 750 seasonic, and this gets grounded through the slot, into the 250 watt psu... This is obviously very bad. I havent risked it to see what happens, i need all my psu's so risers with ground are the only option.

 I think I am going to manually go through the ground pins and see which ones are grounding the 12v lines - then add this to the molex.

This should stop any issues...

I dunno, if anyone is capable then it is Bitfury, from my conversations they are straight shooters and really really know their onions.

If V reckons that they can do that, then it would be a brave man to bet against bitfury. imho.

I know butfury are not that active on this board, but they are a real company with some of the finest minds i have had the pleasure to talk with.

edit lol @

I know I laughed but seriously that is actually a bit harsh, do you have the skills to judge whether bitfury can complete this or not? you are more or less admitting that you dont, so therefore they are scammers??

I have no idea if they are scammers or not, what I do know is that they have at least 2 members of their team that are really really good with electronics and chip design. - superhuman good... I have been waiting for them to make an announcement about asics since last year they have the talent to pull this off.

I have not used projects new service, however I strongly recommend him to anyone who needs some fiat.  I have had lots of great transactions, including one for GBP today.

He is honest, very good with communication and is one of the few people who actually does what he says he will.

Thanks Projects, keep up the good work.