the laggards are chasing profits that don’t exist now. A perverse kind of FOMO? Anyhow, I remain quite biased in my preference for UP rather than DOWN... because even if I might be able to stack a few sats on the way down, it continues to be minuscule amounts of stacking as compared with how much of a benefit comes from purely straight UP. I think that the bigger question is whether Bitcoin is really prepared for a black swan. When fiat currencies and all of the other markets crash and burn, will people tend more to seek Bitcoin as a safehaven, or run away? (To where!? I don’t think that any traditional investments other than precious metals, and illiquid assets such as real estate, can hold value in such a scenario.) In April or thereabouts, I conjectured on WO that we may see extreme Bitcoin “prices” without gain in purchase power—not because of Bitcoin gaining, but the dollar ( et al.) hemorrhaging value. There is just no way that fiat currencies will not see extraordinary devaluation, given how much new currency has been created exactly at the moment of sharp decline in actual economic activity. Official statistics on inflation are manipulated. My “ground truth” is that I have seen sharp increases in the prices of elastic-demand goods within the past six months; but of course, whatever I see locally is a very limited view. Has the recent $10–12k/BTC range simply reflected a decrease in the real-world purchase power of the dollar (as Bitcoin retained approximately the same value), or has it been caused by an increase in adoption, or has it been a speculative run? (Skin in the game: Yes, for my part, I am still “all in”—and consistently with the foregoing, I don’t see anywhere else to go. When I am bearish on fiat currencies, and I expect the stock market, etc. to look like 1929–32 if not worse, and precious metals are susceptible to seizure by governments unless some way can be found to buy them anonymously, what can I do but HODL?) |
|
|
|
I shall go to the himalayas to atone for my sins now Protip: Forget the moralizing histrionics about virtue and sin, focus on some subject other than whether WO is an “extremely toxic community” or you need a stint of navel-gazing, and do something that provides value to yourself and/or others. (This is me being helpful. Shrug.) |
|
|
|
Here is my latest Price Orientation Oscillation Prediction analysis. I hope some find it helpful. Consistent with the mathematical trend of the last ~3 years, this looks like another great price point to strongly short with high leverage. I have confirmed this analysis with the strongest science available so far.  Your argument could be stronger if you didn’t wreathe what’s at best educated guesswork in grand pronouncements about “the strongest science”. Such rhetoric is a scientifically accurate indicator of quackery. Furthermore, playing devil’s advocate, even if your predictions were correct, “to strongly short with high leverage” is a most excellent means to be wiped out on grounds that “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”. Plenty of speculators have lost their shirts with highly leveraged shorts on fundamentally worthless shitcoins. Which Bitcoin is not. This goes far beyond a bearish SELL pronouncement. Too-emphatically urging, with claims of “the strongest science”, that people should jump into a position of potential losses limited only by the amount that they can put up for margin calls— cui bono? |
|
|
|
Perusing WO in search for news, I discovered the obscene spectacle of a self-entitled brat first demanding that the forum’s most popular thread be censored and memory-holed as “ extremely toxic”— viz., he dislikes it—and then accumulating a pile of merits by whining about merits. Of course, there was zero chance that theymos would delete WO or disable merit on it. The appropriate response to SwayStar123’s ungrammatical histrionics would have been to insult and then ignore him. Sadly, attention-seeking tares can altogether too easily control the conversation when they start with wild demands that upset people, and then slowly back off to an approximate simulation of reasonableness whilst dispensing platitudes that, although as empty as they are sanctimonious, have stood unchallenged. have also demonstrated a willingness to be reasonable
The man who is right does not command respect, but the one who admits he is wrong Nonsense. Outside the Cult of Feelings (and I say this in the sense that the statement reeks of “group criticism” and “sensitivity training”, common methods of brainwashing), being right does assuredly command respect; and the respectable man most of all respects he who is right. Admission of having been wrong may be respectable or not, depending on the context; when it is, that in no way detracts from the respect accorded he who is right in the first instance; when it is not, lecturing others on what commands respect is a fantastic conceit. Inductive proof: The earth is flat, 2 + 2 = 5, and anybody who disagrees with me should be shot.[Ensuing discussion in which I lecture my nay-sayers on how they owe me “constructive criticism” instead of “toxic” insults. How righteous I am!]Oops, I was wrong! BOW DOWN, RESPECT ME, AND +++++MERIT ME FOR ADMITTING THAT I WAS WRONG!!!I locked it myself, because someone actually gave me constructive criticism for once, instead of just telling me to fuck off. It appears I was looking at the wrong figures, though i think 14% is still too high its not high enough to warrant much action Why should anybody care what you “think”, instead of just telling you to fuck off? Of course, to ask the question is to answer it; for surely, your history of illustrious achievements should speak for itself. I was replying to a person who said nobody gave a shit about merit, clearly i do
May I ask, Why? number go up feel nice Yup, attention-seeking snowflake. Congrats on upping the number and nice feelings by offering nothing of value, but getting people sufficiently riled that, in the resulting confusion, somebody was bound to pat you on the head for something. Also applies to my wasting my and my readers’ time hereby, with complaints about a melodramatic waste of time. I ONLY visit the WO thread on bitcointalk.org. I always have a tab open on WO thread. If they delete WO thread, they delete bitcointalk.org for me. WO members are the real bitcoiners. No fake shit and bullshit like on reddit and twitter. I don't read this WO thread to post for some merit, otherwise I could have been Legendary a long time ago. Been on this site since 2011, only registered in 2013. Who gives a fuck about merit when you have bitcoin. Sorry your time was wasted by some random idiot, whose style and personality indicate that he would be more at home on Reddit or Twitter. I think that people only took him too seriously, because he takes himself too seriously. I do think that the danger of WO being deleted on his say-so was somewhat less than my chance of guessing Satoshi’s private keys by random chance. Who gives a fuck about this tempest in a teacup, when you can talk about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that a new crypto era will soon come and all crypto activities will begin to be licensed. The day before that happens is the time to dump all your “crypto”. Fortunately, I doubt that such a tyranny will be so easy to impose. There still exist smart people dedicated to permissionless (= unlicenced) innovation.
Seriously, WTF is with the attitude on this thread? I had thought that all the people who wanted “permissioned” nonsense were in XRP, various ERC-20 shitcoins with permissioning in their contracts, etc. For “permissioned” uses, the POW blockchain is the dumbest technology ever invented: Slow, inefficient, not scalable. A non-Byzantine distributed consensus based on some Paxos variant, or Raft, with hash-chained transaction records digitally signed by a central authority (or federation of trusted authorities) would be incontestably more efficient, and provide an unimpeachable audit log. Or, just use an ACID database on a big bank’s mainframe. Use Paypal. Why are the people who want licencing and regulation even interested in Bitcoin? SELL. Go away. Bitcoin has nothing to offer you (and you have nothing to offer Bitcoin).
Edit:Utopia: The cashless society! With all financial transactions of any kind under proper supervision, wicked wights will find it impossible to commit tax evasion and other unapproved uses of money. Anybody who dislikes this can feel free to starve, for want of any unsupervised, unregulated, unlicenced means to buy food. What, do you want for tax-evading terrorist financiers, child dealers, and drug pornographers to be able to buy food anonymously!? Indeed, what kind of political dissident ungoodthinkful unperson would even want to buy food without showing ID plus proper documentation of source of funds and payment of taxes? Untraceable money is the status quo ante with respect to modern technology: No government in all of history has ever before had the ability to track and trace all financial transactions!Imagine if the Soviet Union had had that ability. Now, imagine that being global. Welcome to the future.I am informed that in China nowadays, even street vendors selling snacks accept only electronic payments. Of course, all of these systems are licenced and permissioned; and all parties to all transactions are clearly identified. Know Your Customer.Good luck thinking unapproved thoughts, when with the press of a button, the government can shut off your ability to buy a trifling snack—and instantly pinpoint your location if you try.Aristotle was right when he observed that some people are natural born slaves, and can never be anything but. Unfortunately, that seems to be most people; and those praising licenced-KYC-AML-everything on this thread are too stupid to realize that somehow, some way, for thousands of years after the invention of money, governments survived and societies functioned when exchanges of money were made via bearer instruments that were anonymous and untraceable by default. The push to make all financial transactions transparent and traceable is based on the same false premise as used by e.g. American FBI whines about “going dark”. Technology has given the State capabilities of mass-surveillance and total control that never before existed! When other technologies restore some modicum of the individual privacy and freedom that existed in every kingdom in history, the agents of the State turn around and complain that they are losing their ability to suppress divers bogeys. Their narrative is backwards and upside-down: Privacy-enhancing technologies (including untraceable electronic money) bring us closer to what was always the status quo until just a few decades ago. |
|
|
|
BTW, dogmatic servility of the kind you're proposing has never done anyone any good. It’s depressing that the overwhelming majority of posts in this thread are praising the crackdown in lockstep. Worse is the chorus of virtue-signalling about the bogey of people so evil that (gasp!) they potentially may not pay taxes, if they don’t have a nicely licenced “KYC/AML” financial mass-surveillance régime watching them at all times. What unspeakable sin! PSA: You need the permission and supervision of your masters to use “your” money—OR ELSE! Like Carlton says, it isn't exactly fresh news. AMLD5 had always been looming and I said in some other thread they had been doing the same in Netherlands. Should have been earlier if not for Covid, which gave them an unexpected grace period.
It could be a slight miswording too, not a ban, but a hold on the machines till they implement kyc/aml procedures. That's how it is in NL. Keywords rendered in bold.
Il est bien malaisé (puisqu’il faut enfin m’expliquer) d’ôter à des insensés des chaînes qu’ils révèrent. tell sheep to be “free”, LOL 
I give up. If people on the Bitcoin Forum, of all places, demand that governments close those awful loopholes which may let people use their own money without permission, there is not much hope. that mush be rich person by now unregulated things mean no taxes right some of them, fortunately just a minority,are installing those just as money laundering scheme [...]
The same companies that scream about laws and regulations to boost their business are the same that are trying to ditch them to avoid paying taxes. And this is going to be a huge problem. People will then be using those ATMs to launder money and evade taxes. [...] Death and taxes, both are inevitable. [N.b. the absurd brainwashing cliché.]I mean if they aren't licensed, they don't have documents or permit to operate such thing, why would the authorities let them run and evade taxes? chase those tax evaders The crackdown on illegal and unregulated bitcoin ATM is understandable because as a government, you do not want your taxes/lifeline of your country getting cut short. [!!!]After all, the government is very interested in all regulations atm bitcoin that can be regulated in such a way because the prospect exists, of course, they know that not a little circulation occurs and if the government can take taxes from each transaction it is an advantage in itself. That is exactly my Point mate,How about the legal operator whos paying right taxes while there are these illegal one who's just taking profit out of their business
without spending evena penny. Probably these ATM machines are owned by a rich daddy in the government somewhere around the country  . This can only be a business from the rich just to boycott the tax process in the country, also, not to make known his or her identity. The government should by matter of urgency shutdown the entire illegal ATM machines around the country and confiscate them. * nullius checks the address... yes, this is bitcointalk.org.
May I most modestly propose the following additional talking points for the majority of tax-paying animals in this thread: - We need a licencing requirement for all cash transactions of any kind, with “KYC/AML” rules that require all participants in a cash transaction to report the transaction and the identities of their counterparties. This will help to protect consumers from shady cash deals. After all, who uses cash but criminals?
- Governments must seize of all real, tangible money with intrinsic value. Of course, all goodthinkful citizens must not want evil tax evaders and other sundry Horsemen to hide their money in unlicenced, unregulated, untraceable gold coins.
- Bitcoin needs taint tracing and coin blacklisting, as first persuasively advocated by the visionary Mike Hearn. And we must ban the Lightning Network, which, as “Dr.” Craig Faketoshi Blight so helpfully pointed out, removes from the blockchain the information that governments need to trace financial transactions.
- Bitcoin ATMs must require a scan of an ID card, a fingerprint, and a DNA sample. This must be enforced by the enforcement of ATM licencing. All objections will be stopped by screaming the magic words, “tax evasion” and “money laundering”. What, do you want for tax-evading money launderers and other Official Bogeymen to be able to swap between BTC and local fiat anonymously!?
- Utopia: The cashless society! With all financial transactions of any kind under proper supervision, wicked wights will find it impossible to commit tax evasion and other unapproved uses of money. Anybody who dislikes this can feel free to starve, for want of any unsupervised, unregulated, unlicenced means to buy food. What, do you want for tax-evading terrorist financiers, child dealers, and drug pornographers to be able to buy food anonymously!? Indeed, what kind of
political dissident ungoodthinkful unperson would even want to buy food without showing ID plus proper documentation of source of funds and payment of taxes?
Here’s to a future of financial surveillance so total and inescapable that nobody will even dare to think about unapproved use of money!
P.S., at risk of in certainty of wasting even more of my life by arguing sound reason to such graceless witlings as quoted in the above litany, here is a protip: In terms of taxes, both rich people and professional criminals will not be significantly affected by this. Taxes are primarily paid by the poor, and most of all, by the upwardly mobile middle-class. Rich people have lawyers and accountants to minimize and avoid taxes “legally”, while professional criminals have black-market infrastructure and underground connections to avoid taxes “illegally”. It is only people with neither fancy lawyers nor black-market access who cannot escape being crushed by a system that promises everybody free ponies through the deadly cycle of creating inflationary debt-based money, then taxing the beasts of burden who are forced to use it. Money printer go brrr. Taxes are the “lifeline of your country” (quoted above).Thus is real wealth drained from the overwhelming majority of people into the pockets of the richest 0.0001%, as stupid poor proles cheer the abject impoverishment of anybody who has anything more than basic animal subsistence. This must be terribly amusing to the 0.0001%. After all, Das Kapital is the Holy Writ of plutocrats. Naturally, I expect that what I just said was a waste of words, and will have no impact whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Editorial comment:To test if anybody actually verifies, I am tempted to salt this with fake information—or perhaps to conceal herein the private keys for some Bitcoin. I fear that the latter would be safer than cold storage on an airgapped machine in a bunker beneath the Alps. Nah.Signing time: 2020-08-26 00:16:32The timestamped file:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Bitcoin Forum name: nullius
Bitcoin Forum userid: 976210
PGP primary key: C2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C
# Ten most-recent Bitcoin block hashes:
645343 2020-08-25T23:46:44Z 00000000000000000009662816b0e262aafff29d3751b9cf0eb50651fac6358f
645342 2020-08-25T23:39:21Z 00000000000000000007f986c28c47d747ac6c90313999ad132dc388f191e056
645341 2020-08-25T23:36:27Z 0000000000000000000d97f0ed2e8c1e2c1eeb92a1853c3a9107cfd2f11e1aa4
645340 2020-08-25T23:27:52Z 000000000000000000070bb944819a77e1f4901666ca5a1fd066d0f6ad5cf0ac
645339 2020-08-25T23:02:06Z 00000000000000000009ca2f097c80b71c6a90ba570c898d22b4cca4c85a79c0
645338 2020-08-25T22:52:12Z 00000000000000000007b7b1cd6554831f5f5db5e9eca83d2fbe870b3859750c
645337 2020-08-25T22:24:50Z 000000000000000000096da3a48fffcfe4b2b45eb62bb6ba0ee2fe62704b6eb6
645336 2020-08-25T22:01:54Z 0000000000000000000476d56bcaaf896d191f875a4d8ff23288adaa98c1825e
645335 2020-08-25T21:53:14Z 0000000000000000000d7b80f86ebe145df4c1797c24f9c664bcaa3dda78cb79
645334 2020-08-25T21:43:51Z 00000000000000000006e0d91b7fd5bce6e28e20bbc819b6816779baac8a4739
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCX0Wp4AAKCRDEJ5MVn575
ST0XAQCE/q5XcGTTELN14XdKee2YfV86F8hprbhIyvDUtujzfAEAl+Ylq5K4Cxt6
SjvfpIiQagcchrd/ZEcSUAdhqU0shgY=
=fqfE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To verify the timestamp, you must save the signed statement with Unix line endings ('\n') and a single final line-terminator on the last line. (No blank line at the end.) Exclusively for ease of checking that the file is saved correctly, here is its SHA256 hash: 7283c172e8fe3f95f02c36623bab7813e9eaf005d12b235896cd8b4b6843a5f9 (The following will be edited when the “complete” OTS is available, following adequate confirmations on the Bitcoin blockchain.)AE9wZW5UaW1lc3RhbXBzAABQcm9vZgC/ieLohOiSlAEIcoPBcuj+P5XwLDZiO6t4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|
|
|
|
Nullius punished cryptohunter with trust abuse for showing empathy to plagiarists
Lauda gave nullius 10 merits for this Wrong. She gave me 20 merits for that. Twenty.But then, I never expected for you to keep your facts straight. ~ Now stop derailing my thread dip shit. ~ Stop derailing my thread idiot. It is impossible to derail a thread created for the purpose of trolling. The thing was never on rails to begin with. Too bad that this rule has evidently fallen into desuetude: 3. No trolling. |
|
|
|
Other mods and I have banned many a plagiarist even earlier than that (definitely as early as 2013). Thanks; that’s good to know. Per my prior post, I infer that hilarious was probably one of the mods bringing down the ban-hammer on plagiarists. Was there any formal policy on this, or was it just an ad hoc decision by some mods that behaviour that can get you expelled from school really doesn’t belong on a quality forum? A separate question: Is there any log of moderator actions that would reveal why BadBear banned Lauda? It is probably not information that should be tossed into a troll feeding frenzy; but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look. Lauda has always specifically praised BadBear to me, when it wasn’t even remotely relevant to any current controversy; thus I infer that whatever it was, she must have learned her lesson about it. |
|
|
|
Not that I have a cat in this fight, but at least a few of those examples don't seem to fit the bill for paraphrasing. Its a little iffy but somewhat reasonable if an uncommon phrase sticks in your head, but it'd appear to me that the likelihood of of it being a simple memorable phrase decrease when your sentence structure is the same and there are sort of uncommon bits of stylization can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256? where you'd expect it to say can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer can search through SHA256? or can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer searches through SHA256? That’s a good point—or it would be, if Lauda were a fully fluent English speaker. I have seen her make similar grammatical mistakes herself. The brain does tend to autocorrect such infelicities, even when one intentionally tries to repeat a phrase by rote; but would that happen, with a person who may make the same mistake? example 4 is full of the signs of plagiarism that sort of sticks out in people's coursework. Stuff like putting the ö in Schrödinger’s is fairly uncommon unless you are copy and pasting, as not many people know how to type a ö. Spelling police here. “Schrodinger” would be a misspelling. “Schrödinger” is correct; and “Schroedinger” is correct, albeit not preferred. To drop the umlaut is unacceptable. I generally judge people’s intelligence based on such details as whether or not they properly expand the umlaut when restricted to ASCII; * and if this were coursework, I would take points off for a sloppy misspelling of the name of a famous physicist. “Schrodinger” looks almost as bad as “Hiesenburg”. Anyway, I do not think that orthographic correctness can ever be taken as evidence of copying and pasting. (* I do make allowances for people from completely non-European cultures; but any literate European should know the umlaut rule, not only German speakers. N.b. that the umlaut is not the same as the diaeresis, which is used in such English words as “coöperate”; the latter is no longer popular in English, but is still prescribed by the style guides of some intellectual publications. A motto for proper reëducation: You are not a chicken, so don’t turn coöperation into a coop!)
Phew. I am so very glad that none of the trolls have noticed my concerted effort to finally correct finally to correct my bad old habit of splitting infinitives. It is the only significant linguistic difference between my 2017–2018 posts and my 2020 posts. I am ashamed of the split infinitives, the products of poor childhood education. I should go through all of my old posts and correct them someday.
4. You people showing any empathy for lauda are going to be tagged by nullius for empathy I think that’s my cue to desist from posting in a troll’s thread. I'm all for empathy, fuck nullius who HATES plagiarism in any form. Where is that filthy old pervert anyway? Surely not avoiding this is he? I have been busy, as evidenced by my recent complete absence from the forum. Cryptohunter
There was never a more net positive member since satoshi himself. LOL. “bonesjonesreturns” in sum. |
|
|
|
Subject: WHY LAUDA'S PLAGIARISM CASE HAVE SO MUCH DRAMA?Why it's taking too much drama? Obvious answer: Because trolls such as yourself are making as much drama as you can. Vide the redundantly and repetitiously duplicative creation of this thread. P.S., you forgot <blink> tags.
~ Stop spreading lies. [...a noxious admixture of half-truths, lies, and extreme lies...][...] You are laser focused and only concerned with your opinion and distaste for Lauda. [...] You are spreading lies now. [...more lies...]Interesting.
Bitcoin thrives on drama. If the forum doesn’t have enough drama, the price won’t go up as much. It is a comforting thought that, at the current rate of drama, Lauda’s severely infelicitous posts in 2014–2015 will now take us to the moon. New ATH this weekend?
|
|
|
|
It neither shocks me nor surprises me to see this level of rank hypocrisy from the majority of those who are calling for Lauda to be burnt. So many of the persons who regularly defend plagiarism and other wrongdoing, and who falsely accuse Lauda of abusing the rules for personal vendettas, are crawling out of the woodwork to call for the strictest punishment—obviously, based on personal vendettas. As I said: I am not surprised. What shocked and surprised me was, of course, the evidence. I was about ready to dine on feline fillet; and I grilled Lauda about this in private. Having thoroughly investigated the matter, I think that this is one of those rare corner cases of the lability of the human brain. I do not think that Lauda realized what she was doing, or intended to rip off other people’s texts. I also don’t think that Lauda could fool me. I do take into consideration that I have substantially interacted with Lauda, and I have seen her repeat things by rote in the course of ordinary conversation. (Just not from text written by other people—insofar as I am aware—and not so much as here.) I am too amateurish in textual criticism to be sure; but from my reading of the posts side by side with the source texts, I don’t think it’s implausible that she interpolated her own words with memorized talking points, without even thinking about it. Between that, the manner of her response, and the sincerity with which Lauda despises plagiarism (including what happened here), I do not think that any action is warranted in this matter. I say that as someone who would sooner forgive murder than plagiarism.
Constructive ResponseI'm on the feeling of: the way those edits were made: were to achieve the objective of providing substance as to make a post; rather than reference people correctly to the information.... passing it on as themselves. What would you suggest Lauda should have done differently? (I mean now—not in 2014–2015, the answer to which is obvious.) Lauda’s edits called out her own offence in blood-red highlighting, with backlinks both to the accusation against her, and to her response. The latter is important, because Lauda’s response provided better sources. bitcoinchan only got 2/6 (possibly 3/6) sources right. In one case, Post 5, he cited a thread on another forum that itself appears to be a plagiarism (!). In another, Post 4, he cited an article that contained the relevant text inside a properly cited quotation from an article on another site (!!). In the case of Post 3, he improperly cited some other site for text from a Wikipedia article—even though the other site had cited Wikipedia (albeit without proper quoting) within the portion that bitcoinchan quoted. I note this after having spent hours examining the evidence and researching the sources myself. (How many people posting on this thread did that?) Lauda’s response demonstrated a level of actual caring about credit to sources that I have never seen from anybody accused of plagiarism. And it was done in an understated manner, which I find appropriate: There is nothing to brag about in correcting one’s own wrong. She just went and corrected it. She didn’t make a big poor-me show of self-flagellation, or indulge in any other histrionics—she just quietly thanked the party who brought this to her attention, marked up her old posts in a way that makes it bloody obvious what words originated from others, and belatedly gave credit to the appropriate sources. I agree with this: Because she handled this incident in a constructive way? Unlike how some other people react when accused of the same. ...although, NotATether, I do not agree with some of your defence of Lauda later in the thread: I'm going to fix some of the highlighting bitcoinchan made that does not show copy and paste. Because the definition of plagiarism is copying and pasting stuff (without attribution). Plagiarism does not equal copying and pasting. It is possible to copy and paste without plagiarizing; and it is possible to plagiarize without copying and pasting. For about the past three weeks, I have been intending to write a proper post explaining what plagiarism is and isn’t—with reference to discussions by organizations focused on academic integrity, not only with my own opinion on the subject. I intended that for the RegulusHR thread, since I do not think that Regulus committed plagiarism per se; he did a copy-paste and a shitpost, but not a plagiarism. (I don’t think it’s possible to plagiarize someone else’s worthless shitpost, because it has negligible or zero original substance; plagiarism is the intellectual theft of credit for original work, which wreathes lazy idiots in a glory that belongs to another.) It is also relevant to the “hacker” thread, because “hacker” did commit a clear-cut plagiarism. Some (arguably not all) of the six posts cited by bitcoinchan facially meet the definition of plagiarism, regardless of some changes in wording. The only reasons why I am defending Lauda, rather than calling for her to be banned, are that (0) I really do not think it was intentional, and (1) her response was appropriate—I think it was the best that she could have done in the circumstance, absent a time machine.
A Technical QuestionPlagiarism is one of very few things that theymos has zero tolerance for (except for account buyers). If we find that you plagiarized, then you absolutely will be permanently banned, even if we find it years after you did it. When was the forum rule about banning plagiarists made an administrative policy? My question is if any hypothetical punishment of Lauda would be an ex post facto application of a rule that did not exist when the posts were made. Although I dislike advancing such a technical argument, * you just know the question would be raised if any other user were accused of plagiarism from so many years ago. I also know that I have had the term “ex post facto” tossed at me in the “hacker” case, where it did not even apply. Thus in fairness, I must raise this point in Lauda’s defence. (* If it were my forum, I would ban plagiarists regardless of whether or not I had bothered explicitly to place users on notice with an anti-plagiarism rule. Plagiarism, actual plagiarism (see above), is just something that people should know is wrong; and frankly, I would not want any forum members who don’t already know that plagiarism is wrong before they sign up. But then, if this were my forum, things would look a bit different around here. :-)All six posts identified by bitcoinchan far predate the addition of Rule 33 to mprep’s Unofficial List of Official Rules: Added new rule with an explanation (as per hilariousandco's suggestion): 33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e]
<...>
33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own. The absence of any anti-plagiarism rule from the list in the time period up to 10 May 2015 is confirmed by the earliest available archive.org snapshot, which, by coincidence, was made several hours after the latest post in question. It is an unofficial list of rules, with a note at the top stating that it “ is meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules” (boldface and underscore in the original). If hilarious was already banning people for plagiarism before mprep listed this rule, I would have no criticism of that. A forum search for posts by theymos made at least 1392 days before the time of this writing (2020-05-22) and matching any word from plagiarism plagiarized reveals only the following two posts: Subject: Re: DGCmagazine Bitcoin IssueThe article is full of plagiarism from Bitcoin Market and bitcoin.org.
Subject: Re: Bitcoin WikiI desire attribution for my contributions. WTFPL, at least, seems to suggest that I would be OK with people plagiarizing, which I am not. Copyright should be abolished, of course, but I don't want to encourage people to take my work without attribution. There are probably legal problems with it. Compare it with the similar CC0 license: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcodeOne sentence is not going to cover all of the legal issues. Potentially someone could sue us for using our own stuff. WTFPL is less restrictive than CC-A, so legally copying material from the Bitcoin wiki would require you to get permission from all page authors. I prefer CC-A -- including a link back to the page is not a huge legal burden, and it clearly indicates that plagiarism is not acceptable. No one's going to sue anyone, anyway. I wouldn't mind CC0 or any of the more restrictive CC licenses. Thus though it’s clear that theymos always despised plagiarism, a stance for which I give him credit, * I cannot find any evidence that the forum had an explicit policy on this issue before hilarious suggested the rule to mprep. (* But alas, theymos conflates plagiarism with copyright issues. Copyright is completely irrelevant to plagiarism! You must not plagiarize the words of Shakespeare, or of Ovid, although all of their works are unquestionably in the public domain in every jurisdiction in the world. It is possible to violate copyright without plagiarizing, and possible to plagiarize without violating copyright; the two issues are completely separate, although, as I have observed before on this forum, the copyright lobby enjoys the popular conflation thereof.) As a practical matter, if Lauda were hypothetically to be banned for posts made in 2014–2015, then the archives should be scrutinized; and every user who has ever committed a plagiarism here should be banned, going back to the time when this forum was hosted at forum.bitcoin.org, or even when it was a Sourceforge forum. Not that I would object to that, in and of itself. |
|
|
|
This caught my attention: these pages try to associate bitcoin addresses that are traded between them. The information they provide is not precise. Transactions between those addresses does not indicate that those addresses are the same wallet.
they claim that these addresses are generated from the same wallet.
The way to prove that it is produced from the same private key is to run SHA256 in reverse. this is not possible.
lauda and her followers prefer to assume that they are the same wallet. To the contrary. When properly applied, blockchain heuristics are frighteningly precise. With the relatively simple-looking transactions shown in this thread, the only ways that the heuristics generally will give a false positive in connecting addresses are if evidence is misinterpreted as to an unusual exchange wallet, or if people are taking sophisticated active measures to confuse the heuristics (something that I know because I am studying how best to do this). Obviously, neither of those is the case here. mhanbostanci admits that the accounts are somehow related to him. In my technical opinion, the blockchain evidence is very strong—and the blockchain evidence contradicts mhanbostanci’s story. When the evidence is considered in its totality, it clearly demonstrates that the accounts are (or at pertinent times, have been) controlled by the same individual. But worst of all is mhanbostanci’s attempt to blow smoke with technical jargon, whereas he is not even sufficiently knowledgeable to make up convincing nonsense. At the portion that I have highlighted, I almost suspect that mhanbostanci read and misinterpreted my recent post on this subject. Of course, two different addresses for the same script type cannot be produced from the same Bitcoin private key (!); and inverting SHA256 is irrelevant to inverting HMAC-SHA512 and somehow separating the tweak from the EC public key exposed on the blockchain (the latter part of which I did not mention in that other post, because it seemed irrelevant in the context). When he gets to the point of claiming that blockchain evidence is unreliable because you can’t invert SHA256, mhanbostanci is clearly just making stuff up as he goes along. Yes. Case in point: mhanbostanci. The lie is the biggest sin. Yes. Case in point: mhanbostanci.
Re self-mod: Nothing that I have ever seen from Lauda gives even the slightest hint that she would unfairly prevent an accused individual from speaking in his own defence in a thread against him. Whereas if this thread were not self-moderated, I expect that it would be already on page 3 with mostly troll gibberish and garbage insults. Despite my general reluctance to post in self-moderated threads where I do not know OP’s policy or whether my post may be unexpected deleted, the case for self-mod here should be quite clear to anybody who has followed all the time-wasting idiot-drama on other threads. The accused members are free to post fully and whenever they want to. Self-mod is not for me to take away the power of the accused to defend themselves, but to protect myself from the usual trolls.
The big problem here: Reminder, all three accounts are apparently in DT2. |
|
|
|
Oh, no! I did not know that DarkStar_ is so evil. He even looks suspiciously feloid. Why do you suppose that Laura is defending him!? It is a conspiracy against humans! Well, now, I must red-tag him—and I don’t care what Chip shills say about that. It all makes sense, because only Turks are human.
We must give thanks to the profound intellectual scholarship of the wise Vispilio for his leadership in revealing the TRUTH. |
|
|
|
fuck me really... nevermind facts be damned. Thank you for your courage in ignoring facts to tell THE TRUTH according to self-serving delusions.
I know the solution to this problem Yes, yes! Also: BANE DARKSTAR_! @thermos #DarkStar_MustBeBaned
On an unrelated note, I am sick and tired of all the “how to get a job” sites which recommend that you should focus on your skillset, and present yourself in a courteous and professional manner. That’s so stupid! It is much more effective to demand an interview, and then, when you are rejected or fired, to start a public smear campaign against the company. This technique is most important of all when you are applying for a position in which you will advertise the company to the public. Every public relations professional knows that the best public face for your company is presented by people who have spent months campaigning to damage the company’s reputation with baseless accusations and wild insults! |
|
|
|
Bump: Lauda is back on DT2! Well, that didn't last long. So much for my newfound faith in unicorns, faeries, and the innate goodness of humanity grudging acceptance that the forum trust system may not be totally broken.
i think Lauda no more wants to be in DT
because she can’t get orgasm ( may be another reason )
DT1 material: Bitcointalk.org edition. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Gratuitously lewd insults in a wildly inappropriate context are usually a sign that a person (a) is 12 years old; or, (b) is a classless leering brute of the level that would enjoy drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa... ...or, (c) is projecting frustrations caused by severe and incurable erectile dysfunction......or, (d) is what once upon a time would have been called a moral imbecile. Or, (e) all of the above. there is no bad people at all in the earth Case in point: Moral imbecile. A superannuated child who insists on living in a Utopian fantasy world where all people are good, and who thus condemns as evil anybody who realizes that reality exists. Otherwise known as a “liberal”, by definition. Indeed: the bad people only in your mind so you must just fix your mind That is a commonplace of extreme “liberal” propaganda, which twists and inverts reality: “If you dissent from my voluntary psychosis, then you are mentally ill.”
The vast majority of people are more bad than good; and even in the best societies, there exists a criminal element that consists of bad people as such. This is an accurate assessment of human nature as it is, not as one may wish it would be. The purpose of rules and laws is to bring out the good in the former, by suppressing the bad in them (as expressed in the horribly inaccurate cliché, “keeping honest people honest”)—and to destroy the latter altogether. A mythical golden age where, “Needless was written law, where none opprest / The law of Man was written in his breast” (Ovid) is best left to poets. Only a small minority of people are so principled that they “ would embrace death before the self-negation of dishonour—not as a sacrifice, but as a supreme act of pure selfishness” (nullius). It is no coincidence that they judge others, who have first most strictly judged themselves according to economically irrational standards that are totally alien to the utilitarian worldview. As such, for a person to be strict toward others is necessary but insufficient for an observer to conclude that that person has trustworthy judgment; and a person who indulges a childish fantasy that “there is no bad people at all in the earth” (!) has not only untrustworthy judgment, but malicious anti-standards of judgment. I trust Lauda, because I am confident that she would keep my trust without regard to any calculation of utility—even in any case where it would be economically rational for her to act treacherously. I trust Lauda’s judgment, because I expect for her to apply the same standard to others as she has first applied to herself: Her conscience comes from within, and is not an externally enforced rule. I categorically distrust anybody who pretends that bad people don’t exist. Only a bad person would say so; for it is the passive-aggressive endorsement of badness in a world where suffering is always and inevitably more abundant than joy, where bad always outweighs good—where goodness oft equals hardship, and badness is the easy way out (wherefore badness equals weakness as such)—a world in which “when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle” ( Burke). |
|
|
|
Topic is renamed by scammers to ABC, but website is still active for now. At this point, your rapid response with this thread seems to have quashed the scam on this forum before the scammers could actually rip anybody off here. So as for the forum. If the Ethereum people would just seize the domain (an open-and-shut UDRP case for their lawyers), this particular scam would be effectually kicked off the Internet. But the same person(s) have probably been here before, and will probably be back in another guise. For now, it looks like they are preparing to cut and run: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2797897This user's email address was changed recently. seclog does not seem to show this type of change? I am looking for a timestamp.
It would be polite to notify the people whose photos were ripped off for the fake team. They probably won’t be able to do anything about it; but if it were my photo, I would want to know, just on principle. When you were tracking down their photos, did you happen to find any direct contact information for them? (Obviously, contact info for innocent bystanders/victims should not be exposed on this public thread, even if it is publicly available elsewhere.) |
|
|
|
Domain Name: ETHEREUMC.ORG Registry Domain ID: D402200000013119114-LROR Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namesilo.com Registrar URL: www.namesilo.comUpdated Date: 2020-04-22T07:45:53Z Creation Date: 2020-04-04T08:22:18Z Registry Expiry Date: 2021-04-04T08:22:18Z Registrar Registration Expiration Date: Registrar: Namesilo, LLC Registrar IANA ID: 1479 Does anybody here have contacts in the Ethereum world? I presume that lawyers for the Ethereum Foundation (or whomever holds the trademark) could UDRP it posthaste. I am generally reluctant to attack domain names, since that is a major free speech issue; and Namesilo probably doesn’t want to be in the position of judging this. Whereas it is a clear-cut intentional infringement of Ethereum’s trademark, made purposely to confuse people and steal money from ordinary users who may assume that it’s somehow associated with Ethereum. This is, in theory, a textbook example of why people set up legal organizations with lawyers. The holder of the Ethereum trademark would have the legal standing to pursue this. At a hasty glance, this is all that I could find: https://ethereum.org/terms-of-use/Trademarks
The Foundation name, the terms Ethereum Switzerland, Ethereum Asia, the Foundation logo and all related names, logos, product and service names, designs and slogans are trademarks of the Foundation or its affiliates or licensors. You must not use such marks without the prior written permission of the Foundation. All other names, logos, product and service names, designs and slogans on this Websites are the trademarks of their respective owners. |
|
|
|
At the left hand side you see the master key, all adresses are derived from this master key (simply put by adding a counter). Tools like walletexplorer.com are capable of backtracing adresses to their master seed. Incorrect. You CANNOT backtrace addresses to a master seed. Addresses are NOT generated by “simply” adding a counter: The counter (index i in the standard) is run through HMAC-SHA512, together with data that are not available from blockchain transaction data. Can you invert HMAC-SHA512? Please do not spread grossly wrong technical misinformation about BIP 32 Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets. There are ways that blockchain analysis companies can infer addresses to be part of the same HD wallet. Those who use proper privacy practices are immune to this. For example, you will never be able to correlate the addresses in my HD wallets. BIP 32 itself does not have any privacy problems.
P.S., your coinsutra.com link blocks Tor with 403 Forbidden. I could not review the article that you linked. I hope that they are not claiming that HD wallet addresses can be “backtraced”!
Edit—with thanks to Lakai01 for the courteous followup:
Perhaps I should not have come off so harshly. I am undoubtedly a curmudgeon, after too much experience dealing with people who insist on spreading wrong information. And here, there are real potential consequences to something that came off as FUD on HD wallets. If newbies see that, and decide to try to figure out how to run an old-fashioned keypool instead of using an HD wallet, then they are at risk of losing money to disk crashes, etc. due to the practical difficulty of keeping up-to-date backups of a non-HD wallet. And they still will not have privacy: From a blockchain analyst’s perspective, there is no difference between an HD wallet, and a wallet of addresses from randomly generated keys. I actually do not know why the site here is referring to an “HD wallet”. I have seen other explorer sites that simply refer to correlated addresses as “wallets”. The common ownership heuristics used to do these correlations are quite reliable, outside unusual scenarios. For someone juggling over a hundred accounts for the purpose of cheating, it would require considerable expertise to avoid getting busted this way. For obvious reasons, I am not inclined to provide a “how to not get busted” guide on a thread where a cheater was busted with blockchain evidence. For safety’s sake, however, I will advise people to keep an HD wallet xpub (extended public key, or what Electrum calls a “master public key”) almost as confidential as a private key. That was not the issue here. It’s just good general advice—not only for privacy, but also for security insofar as an xpub together with a single non-hardened child address’ private key can be used to recover the corresponding xpriv, and thus all private keys descending from the same “master key”. BIP 32 explicitly warns about this, and provides hardened derivations for this exact reason. BIP 32 hardened child keys do NOT have this issue. — Aside, I should also remark that an HD wallet is not necessarily generated from mnemonic seed phrases. BIP 32 itself generates an HD wallet from a pseudorandom binary seed of 128–512 bits. A seed phrase can be used to generate the input for BIP 32; there are several schemes for secure seed phrases, including BIP 39 and Electrum’s Seed Version System. A secure seed phrase must be randomly generated according to such a scheme; it is not the same as a “brainwallet”, which is insecure and should never be used. </off-topic> |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
