Anyone here know anything about this? https://xx.network/Apparently, it has been developing as I live under a rock. Or else, perhaps there may be disadvantages to ignoring altcoins too assiduously. There are also disadvantages to a marketing website facially indistinguishable from empty hype, which I would click straight past if the name “Chaum” were not associated with it.What catches my attention is that the original inventor of digital cash, who also led the creation of the IACR, is probably not a snakeoil peddler. h/t:hello and welcome to oldgreybeardcointalk https://youtu.be/ZVZxRMAeIdo Why Bitcoin Now: David Chaum and Adam Back Reflect on the Crypto Wars - Ep.186 David Chaum, the inventor of eCash and CEO of xx network, and Adam Back, the inventor of Hashcash and the cofounder and CEO of Blockstream, discuss their involvement in digital currency well before Bitcoin existed. |
|
|
|
iirc pools used to give data on worker numbers back in the days and a lot of miner programs identified themselves as such and such. thereby giving a rough breakdown.. cgminer would mainly of been gpus (back before asic stole -cks code with no credit), some fpga had custom miner software with different names they would report to the pool and so on. Did anybody collect and archive this data in a useful format? (Maybe ask the NSA. They collect everything. They know where you were on 2010-03-09 at 10:04 in the morning, even if you don’t remember. I wish that I had access to their recordings of the phone sex that I had years ago, when I was more foolish and less encrypted.)
I am guessing that ether gas prices will get a little bump, with more more tethers flying around a network that’s been groaning under the USDT load as it is. ETH, LOL. |
|
|
|
The joke:The punch line:Confirmed maths and science yield a 98.2962642% probability that this is true. Source: Unprofitable, and therefore “retired”. Just like you, so very soon. —Yes, they were the original parody of “motivational” posters. I recall that they almost made a billion-dollar IPO in the original dot-com bubble—just kidding—I think.
|
|
|
|
An interesting question just popped in my mind:
How much kWh was used to create the current Blockchain?
Should be somehow possible to calculate it based on the given mining hardware and mining difficulty. Possible to estimate, yes; but I don’t see how it could be easy. That would require cost/efficiency estimates for every generation of miners: CPU (various optimized implementations and CPU models), GPU (ditto), FPGA, every generation of ASIC... Does a collection of those historical data even exist anywhere? If you folks discussing this were to gather in the first instance, the effort may be worth a research paper. Maybe one already exists (with data up to some past point). Purely from a scientific point of view. And from inception, thus the genesis block.
Would be nice to see(feel) the monumental work and energy that was put to secure the blockchain and to get an impression and a feel of how much power was used to create this distributed ledger. I don’t think that the historical electricity cost would give a clear view of the current security of the Bitcoin blockchain. With ASIC hardware, you could easily outrun the whole early CPU-mined Bitcoin network at drastically lower energy cost! Of course, as you continued rewriting blockchain history, sooner or later, you would slam into the historical point at which the real Bitcoin network’s hashrate exceeded your hardware’s capabilities. From that point onwards, you would just get further and further behind with your fake blockchain, as the chaintip of the real Bitcoin network keeps advancing faster than you can chase it.* Still, yes, the energy-cost accounting would be historically interesting. purely for science The real kind! (* And one of the marvellous properties of the Nakamoto Consensus is that the “real” chain can be selected by an isolated node with no information except the block data alleging one or more consensus-rule valid chains. Most-work (not “longest”) chain wins, and that’s that. Not even a trustworthy realtime clock source is required. It is the whole point of how this is supposed to work; but somehow, I often see people missing it—usually when they want to suggest some “improvement” which would break Bitcoin’s security without even achieving what they expect.)
Jay: Insightful comments that will probably inspire a short essay.
No.... don't do it.  Is that investment advice to avoid shorting my lifetime at high leverage by posting on an Internet forum? Confirmed math and science calculate that writing on the Internet brings −99.53088288% ROI. |
|
|
|
So the 'purpose' of WO now is to 'taunt' me with 'un-obtainable Women', Unobtainable? Here in the real world, I’ve had at least one girlfriend with a prettier face than the girls in those photos (whatever popular celebrities—I don’t care), albeit not quite as good a body (but then, she was 100% real—and function matched form: she was talented, bodily). I remember her particularly, because I was flat broke when we met—impoverished to the point of lacking basic survival necessities. Interesting times. This one is unobtainable:  (maybe I need a Cat...Cat people tell me life is better with a Cat...at least you give up the idea of any control in the household with a Cat)... You cannot escape the nature of woman by trading her for a pussy. That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her nature, which is more “natural” than that of man, her genuine, predatory, cunning flexibility, her tiger-claws beneath the glove, her naïveté in egoism, her untrainableness and innate wildness, the incomprehensibleness, extent, and deviation of her desires and virtues. That which, in spite of fear, excites one’s sympathy for the dangerous and beautiful cat, “woman,” is that she seems more afflicted, more vulnerable, more necessitous of love, and more condemned to disillusionment than any other creature. Fear and sympathy: it is with these feelings that man has hitherto stood in the presence of woman, always with one foot already in tragedy, which rends while it delights... Quote works better out of context: Females are easier IME.
Jay: Insightful comments that will probably inspire a short essay. |
|
|
|
...fade to black; for I am not inclined to write actual porn in WO unless somebody pays me good BTC for that.
I'm already doing that for free, helloooo.. I suppose that that is the difference between a slut and a whore. ;-) Now just need to get down n dirty.  Thanks; but having already been the subject of the forum’s most notorious sex scandal, I think I’ll hodl my reserve. Call me a bit coy. Ciphersex is still in my post history.
On the hermeneutics of bitcuck porn@TheVladCostea
Decided to research Bitcoin pr0n and found this gem:
– Couple tries to buy BTC from ATM, stranger approaches them to inform that fees are too high;
– Stranger takes them to their office to sell them BTC in person.
– Boyfriend doesn't have enough money, so he trades GF for 1 BTC.
(...)
 Not sure why he's looking so worried though. It’s a bitcuck porn plot. He is not in control. He is not an active decision-maker who chose to have a whore for a girlfriend (or whore her out) because he enjoys that—as some do; but that would be a quite different porn plot. Rather, he is a poor plebe who can’t afford to buy 1 BTC; accordingly, his attempted Bitcoin purchase spun wildly out of his control. He is powerless. His girlfriend has power: She has the power to extract 1 BTC from a man with her feminine wiles. Hey, can you make 1 BTC within minutes? The man fucking her has power: He has the Bitcoin, and she will do anything for that! Here, it is literally fuck-you money. Bitcoin itself has power: King Daddy does not give a fuck what the cuckold boyfriend wants. As a divine fiat, Bitcoin has decreed that his girlfriend is going to get fucked by a total stranger right in front of him. And that’s that. The worried-looking man just got cucked by Bitcoin. Analysis based on LFC’s description. Could be mistaken, though the “worried” shot seems to be a dead giveaway. I did not (yet?) watch the porn.
Bit Advice Dear Nullius, Our beautiful young daughter says she's in love with a man 3 times her age. When we question her about it, she keeps telling us she just loves a man who HoDLs; we don't even know that that means!! Please tell us, what we should do! sincerely, worried in WO. Dear Mr Worried: It seems that you disapprove of this relationship. The reasons are of null consequence to me; that is your family business. Regardless, if you live in a sane jurisdiction, then you have a paternal right to sue the man in court, for to stop him from marrying your daughter. —What’s this? All those old laws were repealed due to feminism, and a woman’s naïve, lovestruck young maiden’s unlimited, inalienable right to make drastic, life-altering decisions without patriarchal oppression? Oh, dear me: I forgot to turn over my calendar. What century is this... —What’s that? He does not want to marry her, but is only in it for a pump-and-dump scam? Well, I guess that you are your daughter is screwed. The good news is that it seems she has a keen instinct for money. If she can learn to keep her emotions out of it, she may have a fine career ahead of her. It is a venerable profession, the oldest profession; and like any other business, it must be approached as a business: The girls who have long-term success are those who know such business basics as pricing, market segmentation, advertising, accounting, budgeting such that revenue exceeds expenses, planning a capital reserve to cover short-term downturns in client demand, etc., etc. Of course, the best product commands the highest prices; thus, taking into account her natural assets, your daughter can maximize her earnings potential by optimizing her skillset. Teach her the rudiments of business administration, as are applicable to any business—and admonish her to keep her concepts straight. By saying that she “just loves a man who HoDLs”, she means that she loves a man who has money. This can be optimized if she admits that she loves money, period. To avoid confusion, I should clarify that “money” is an archaic term for what most of us simply call Bitcoin. NSA surveillance photo of you, Mr Worried:Indeed, it may be unfortunate if you wanted grandchildren, and a continuing familial legacy. But that would be the only rational reason to object to your daughter’s newfound profession. She will make money, which is really important— right? She will make more money than she would as a secretary or a kindergarten teacher, or a Human Resources meatbot—let alone if (gasp!) she were to become a housewife. Whereas for high-income jobs, just think of the shame that you would suffer if your daughter were to become a lawyer, a politician, or an investment banker! As a practical matter, may I suggest that you plan a liquidation phase for your investments, and make sure that you spend it all on hookers before you die. After all, markets are subject to the law of supply and demand; and as you can see, supply is up. If market demand does not increase commensurately, then prices will fall. You don’t want for your daughter to be poor, do you? Do your part to keep the market bullish by keeping your daughter’s competition busy! Cheers from the current year, nullius
Edit:A girl like that is affordable for everyone in this forum. It is just a matter of length of time that differs. I rest my case. |
|
|
|
If/when I am rich screwing a few girls like that would be nice for sure, but I don't want to live with a gold digger.
Of course not. None of us would want to settle down with any kind of girl like that. Surely, it wouldn't be good. With regard to “settling down”, I must point out that the only rational reason for a man to invest long-term in an intimate relationship with a woman is for the production of suitable heirs. Anything else can be had most optimally on a short- or medium-term basis. Of course, many men behave with an effeminate irrationality; and the whole concept of “marriage” has been destroyed, inasmuch as it has come to be based on so-called “love”, i.e. an emotional codependency of narcissists who produce children in the manner of buying fashion accessories (and then wonder why the brats grow up to be ungrateful losers). Marriage is a reproductive relationship—not about you, not about her, not about your egos and your “love”—certainly not just about sex and good feelings, which can be obtained on an hourly rate schedule. Indeed, if you can pay at least $500–1000/hour (the sky’s the limit), then you can hire not only sex, but also charming companionship, social poise, and even a bit of intellect. There are some things money can’t buy—such as someone to whom to leave your money. Otherwise, plan your liquidation phase such that hookers get all of your money before you die. Your life will sum to zero, and you will be quickly forgotten: Genetically forgotten, memetically forgotten, extinguished body and soul as if you had never existed. Meanwhile, have fun! :-) N.b. that for the aforestated purpose, you do want a beautiful woman. Darwin can help explain why—or you may ask a dog breeder about the requirements if you want to avoid having degenerate, ugly pups. Beauty is not skin-deep, after all; and the desire therefor is anything but shallow.
Catching up, bit by bit...is this a hint that you are gunning for a hat? because there are hoops that must be gone through and hurdles that must be cleared to gain such an accolade
bases that must be covered No, thanks; I remain an incorrigible no-hatter. Whereas I apparently overestimated the troll crowd’s literary acumen: I presumed the term “corrupt cap wearer” to be a botched reference to Albrecht Gessler in the story of William Tell, or something of that nature. I didn’t associate it with WO hats; if I didn’t misinterpret some of their incoherent gibberish (as may be possible), I think that I saw trolls tossing it at Lauda as well as myself. Whoops. |
|
|
|
Alas, I need 100k BTC to just get 'invited' to a party where there are enough 'rich guys' to even have such 'fantasy women' show up!..sure... I still would not have a shot..but..hey, at least then someone looking like her might 'talk to me'.Whereas now, if I was to approach to ask directions, w/o such a party invite, I'd get maced and arrested for 'stalking' or some such. (sheesh) Are you serious!? Alas, you are. Well, with that stunning personality, no wonder you can’t even talk to a beautiful woman without having her mace you and call the cops. The problem isn’t her. And it isn’t a lack of money or “party invites”. “Sheesh.” Contrary to much advice (most of which is worthless), people don’t change. You are who you are. What you can do is to accept who you are, and set your expectations realistically. If you are the type of man who cannot get beautiful women (or from the sound of it, perhaps any women), then accepting this can help you to avoid disappointment, frustration, bitterness, resentment, blame games, and making a spectacle of your self-pity. The soundest advice is so oft that which people don’t want to hear.Anyway, little steps BTC Hoard/HODL...little steps....soon!  Well, that’s the spirit! Bitcoin still loves you. Bitcoin loves everybody who wants to HODL it. |
|
|
|
It's the BSV thread that is deleting our posts. Some of us who have posted here, have posted there, and it took several months before the self-mod of that thread to delete our posts. It's not in this thread.
How would that result in auto-PMs explicitly stating, “deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic”, with reference to what appear to be past posts in WO? "appear" yes, but are not. I remember the posts and the thread. It "appears" to be pasts posts in WO because a bunch of us came to that thread to mock that idiot about his flags and statements about "corrupt cap wearers". Either the thread got nuked or the idiot decided to remove the posts. Thank you for the cool heads and cogent explanations. I observe that the self-moderation banner at the top of this thread currently says, “148 posts by 37 users deleted.” An archival snapshot from 2020-07-19 says, “147 posts by 36 users deleted.” Accordingly, unless the forum and/or archive.org are lying, infofront has deleted a whopping one (1) Wall Observer post within the past eight weeks.(Of course, forum moderators’ actions and deletions by post authors not relevant to self-mod deletion messages. I do notice the thread sometimes jumping up inexplicably, such as today.)
Damn, I only got called a “corrupt cap wearer” by sock trolls in Reputation and Meta. How did I miss out on being accorded that title by the BSV shill? :'-( |
|
|
|
If you don’t have 0.1 #BTC or don’t want to use IOS app you can join Chaincase from your @wasabiwallet desktop and coinjoin 0.01 If it does what it says on the tin, this is great news! (Same as one of those Twitter feeds said: “This is not an endorsement.”) For those who don’t want to enable Javashit and run network-loaded executable code (!) on their machines to view (!!) Twitter: https://chaincase.app/Source code: “non-custodial privacy preserving bitcoin wallet for iOS” https://github.com/chaincase-app/chaincasenopara73 seems to say it’s legit:  A quick web search finds nothing else useful.
Those posts/deletions do not belong to THIS thread. It is just the one that BSVtard opened about flagging a lot of people (corrupted cap wearers, etc), that probably got nuked. How would that result in auto-PMs explicitly stating, “deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic”, with reference to what appear to be past posts in WO?
STOP DELETING THE HISTORY The Internet is one big memory hole nowadays. Some people think that’s a feature, not a bug. No longer is effort required to incinerate evil ideas! DELETING THE HISTORY prevents wrongthink, you ignorant slut. No offence intended: It is simply my new nickname for everybody in WO. Isn’t it from some American comedy skit way back when? I never saw it, but heard of it. Care to enlighten us, Mr Chopped Liver 69? |
|
|
|
This story goes better when she is mesmerized by the sight of the UTXO, the immutable mark of the carnal transaction in which she laid herself down as a sacrificial offering to the god of Bitcoin. She feels that she herself is forever hashed into the blockchain; it arouses her anew, it enthralls her, and she becomes addicted to accumulating bitcoins through ciphersex...
... until the bigblockers came around one day.  [—graphic shitcoin horrors!—]As a psychological principle, an erotic scenario must evoke what the invariably female reader desires, or what she secretly wishes—or maybe what she would secretly be glad to have happened, after it happened—at least in the realm of fantasy. Whereas no woman in the world wants to be molested by a bunch of creepy big-blockers. Ewww. That’s just gross! It’s like an erotic story about being ravished by tapeworms. (In the extreme, I once knew—yes, knew a woman who fantasized about various horror-film villains. She was fun, and a little bit freaky... There are probably women out there who have a crush on Cthulhu. But big blockers? Nah, they are too small to be useful even for erotic horror.)For a story exposing some poor girl to the rapine depredations of big blockers, here is an improved version: The big blockers capture our damsel in distress. They obviously intend to hardfork her without consensus. But then, they can’t actually do anything to her: Their big blocks are all empty and flaccid, and then their hashrate plummets and their DAA gets confused, and she just winds up giggling. Why, she almost feels sorry for them as they desperately try flippening her. LOL. Then, the Bitcoin Man steps in. Although our damsel doesn’t really seem too distressed, she is thrilled because— Bitcoin! He perfunctorily dismisses the idiots who were trying to bother her, just because the script seems to require it. She swoons and sighs and makes come-hither eyes and whispers, “HODL me”... ...fade to black; for I am not inclined to write actual porn in WO unless somebody pays me good BTC for that. |
|
|
|
No wonder he now speaks only in pictures.
|
|
|
|
Coke is so stupid! No sane person gives a fuck about your idiotic “ election”, a.k.a. an entertaining exercise to excite the glands of brainless sheep. P.S., politicizing Covid kills people and destroys economies. STOP IT.
Go, Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
For the record, did we hit or pass $10,472 at major exchanges?
I was kind of snidily referring to the poll that is currently at the top of this thread, and I believe that closing price was around $10,450 (which would have been the price on Bitstamp at midnight UTC). Eh, I was kind of snidely gently and innocently referring to this: Entered shorts at 10472, already locked in some profits to cover fees in case we go back to entry (where i moved my stop) ...some observation of BTC price peaks around $10,577 in the past 20 minutes... My magic is still strong.
My magic is still strong. Hah: WO post #544888, topic=178336.msg55185555#msg55185555 Should have posted that essay I’ve been slowly editing. Go, Bitcoin, go! |
|
|
|
Well, in essence, we are witnessing that the 12th came and went, and surely there were some moment in which $10,501 was nearly breached, but we did not quite get a supra $10.5k closing, instead we got a sub $10.5k closing... For the record, did we hit or pass $10,472 at major exchanges? Did bitcoin enter the Kangaroo market again? $10K seems to be its favorite playground. All things considered, it’s been in this range for a very short time. That’s not a trend. People who are impatient for drastic weekly swings are far too accustomed to extreme volatility. When I said before that the $10k range was “comfortable”, I hope that neither Jay nor anybody else took that as anything but optimistic. Cheerful, even. Those who predicted a sudden drop to $8k, $6k, or even lower were flat wrong. Stability above that magical $10k line is good. Those who short are getting spanked, whilst holders enjoy a store of value that’s doing just that. Slow and steady... The moon is still out there. |
|
|
|
I now pronounce you man and wife. You may kiss the bride. Protip: Irrational, vituperative drama queens become old maids. |
|
|
|
Shitcoins never really die completely Get the fuck out of here with your alt coin love in! Did you not notice that there are several thousand lingering “coins”, each with a minuscule, illiquid “market cap” which would promptly crash if anybody tried to sell any significant amount on the very few exchanges where that is even possible? They indeed “never really die completely”. They are in a persistent vegetative state: Comacoins. |
|
|
|
Cryptotourist, an NSA OSINT analyst tipped me that the rank-watchers in Meta forgot you. SwayStar’s rise to Full Member merited mention. Your earlier rise to Sr. is listed on the front page. Are you out of the conspiracy to take my money, turn it into 21,000 BTC, and then take over the forum? :-/
I am in a urban environment overcrowded, heavily polluted, crime-ridden, disease-infested anthropoid sewer prone to simultaneous prison-style lockdowns and riots with huge RE taxes. Move. I would imagine that in SanFran or NY anything less than 200-250K/year in income is a strain.
The EU tentative regulation that Biodom mentioned, as I understand it, is aimed at tokens issued by corporate actors (libra is explicitly mentioned, and tether would qualify as well). You are confused. The article explicitly addressed Bitcoin. The long-awaited regulation will address the high volatility of cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, the most popular of these digital tokens, and the risks posed by systemic ones, like Libra. The portion that I quoted immediately followed some blather about “a market worth around $350 billion, and spread over more than 6,700 digital currencies”. The article was at some points unclear about which bureaucratic diktat applied to which type of “cryptocurrency”; but I very well realized that some portions only spoke of “Libra” et al., and I followed the context accordingly. (The media tend to mangle the facts, anyway. When I read the article, I cursed at not having the source document available.) It could simplify things for helpfully ensnare some people - the unbanked unenslaved come to mind. Why is being “unbanked” supposed to be a bad thing? It is an Orwellian brainwash-term. And why could the lives of the bank-free not be improved by Bitcoin instead?
Are you saying you'd risk your money by keeping it in fiat in some bank? The term "money in the bank" is misleading unless the "bank" is your own i.e. Bitcoin. This.I could never understand why people keep fiat savings in banks. I have even seen people post photos of their gold and silver holdings themselves on readily identifiable social media accounts, with faces in the picture (!). Some people just ain’t so bright.
ftfy Thanks. How did I make that typographical error? I can’t even make the excuse of typing on a “smartphone”. (I used to advocate privacy by asking people if, given that they have “nothing to hide”, they would be willing to take remote-access cameras and microphones into their bedrooms. Then, I realized that most people actually do. Oops.) |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency developers should produce a ‘white paper’ with all the relevant information about the issuer, the token or the trading platform “to enable potential buyers to make an informed purchase decision and understand the risks relating to the offering,” the proposal says.
National and European regulators must approve these documents before issuers can start operating. A faceless Tor user who calls himself “Satoshi Nakamoto” will seek approval from self-entitled bureaucrats before releasing “bitcoin.pdf” and a bunch of source code, because... because. Everybody is a bank-loving masochist with a regulatory fetish! Confirmed by strongest science. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
