So, as you ready to take RGBKey up on his offer of an independent audit?

I do seriously think that if your claims be true, then you could be a candidate for a Fields Medal.  (Not a Nobel Prize.  There is no such thing as a Nobel Prize for mathematics.  The Fields Medal is for maths, and is even more elite.  It is given but once every four years.)  History would be made!  Maths textbooks around the world would need to be rewritten!  But you will never get to claim the Fields Medal, plus the money and glory thereto attendant, if you never let others discover your paradigm-shifting work of genius.  For the secrets locked up in a proprietary script, an independent private audit would be a good start.

Perhaps that may be because you fail to understand the explanation that no intelligent person would bother with repetitious back-and-forth over charges so nonsensical on their face as to be cartoonish.

But put that aside.  Didn’t you see the news?  Lauda has confessed guilt on the substantial essence of all your charges!


Feel better, now?  Is your craving thus satisfied?

I do agree that diet is a major component.  Indeed, that was one aspect I liked about the graphic I displayed in OP.

A fast-food diet heavy in carbohydrates and hydrogenated vegetable oils does Americans no good.  Neither does the stereotypical American attitude of self-entitled sloth, indiscipline, and general weakness.

In Europe, there is more than a Mediterranean diet:  All parts of Europe have more traditional diets, each in its own way.  Plus, a European attitude.

Thread split:
On false dichotomies, Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee, and why YOU SHOULD NEVER VOTE!

I wouldn’t want to divert this thread to discussion of somebody unimportant, rather than nobody’s importance.

An aside about the current POTUS:  Trump clearly wants to remake American society as some modernized version of the 50s.  Thus:  After societies in almost every part of the world (including America) were already rotted to the core.  If you wish to exercise some real conservatism, try a different 50s:  The 1750s, before the era of decay which led to the moral and literal bloodbath of the French Revolution.  I have spoken similarly before:

Thread split:




Well, let’s consider the question in the hypothetical:

So, @criptix, do you mean the corrupt billionaire who once tried to turn some working folks’ homes into a casino parking garage, but now styles himself as a conservative hero of the working class—versus the corrupt millionaire political-Mrs. who drips empathy out of her limousine onto the welfare class who feeds off the working class?

At least, I think that Trump is marginally less likely to destroy the entire world than Hillary would have been.  I suppose that’s important to me.

Anyway, if I were American, I’d take Tweedledum.  No, wait—Tweedledee.  No—  I can’t decide!

I think the correct choice is neither.


This is why I say:  Don’t vote.  By voting, you grant your moral and practical political endorsements to a corrupt system:  An ochlocracy manipulated by a plutocracy.  The result is kakocracy:  Rule of the worst.

If you vote, then you are part of the problem.

---

(Note:  This thread is self-moderated, because I don’t want to inadvertently create yet another spam megathread for idiots trying to bump their post counts.  Illiterate one-liners and other low-quality posts will be deleted with extreme prejudice.  So will posts by both Trumpists, Hillary-drones, all Americans, and anybody who votes.  Hahah, just kidding.  Flame away!)

Note:  I am aware that not all Americans are fat.  And I do know that as with most negative stereotypes, stereotypes about Americans are a matter of 99% of Americans giving the rest a bad name.

Americans who are neither obese nor insane should feel free to seek sympathy in this thread.  My condolences.

Seriously.  In both the East and the West, everybody asks this question.


Oh, dear me.  Pardon, I must go AFK to bathe my eyeballs in bleach.

Why!?

---

(This thread is self-moderated, because I don’t want to inadvertently create yet another spam megathread for idiots trying to bump their post counts.  Illiterate one-liners and other low-quality posts will be deleted with extreme prejudice.  Let’s keep this thread fit and trim.  But here, I will not delete posts I simply disagree with.  Flame away!)

(Bold/red added.)

Wait.  What is the controversy here?  Alia already says that the script will lose over time.  Insofar as I can tell, her claim is that it can quasi-magically succeed in its first few runs—most of the time—but will occasionally super-duper fail.

---

This intersects with my “fixated gambler” hypothesis as to Alia’s motives, stated on the first page of this thread.  Obsession with discovering a secret way to win is not at all uncommon.  Note:  Historical experience with persons making extraordinary claims does show that such an obsession is not mutually exclusive with dishonesty toward others.  A personal obsession with a winning script may or may not coincide with a scam.  There have been many historical instances of such people who seemed to genuinely believe their own claims on some level, while actively performing what could not have been other than consciously calculated steps to fool others.  The study of such phenomena is fascinating (and does intersect with much historical study of religion, cults, and superstitions generally).

---

I am actually one of those people who is critical of how the p < .05 confidence level is oftentimes (usually?) used—just because it’s commonly used.  Of course, the reason stated by LoyceV (1/20 chance of a fluke being far too high) is part of the importance of repeatability of an experiment by independent parties.  Thus, regardless of p-value:

If Alia wants to use “empirical” evidence to override the known laws of mathematics, then the experiment must be repeatable to be scientifically valid.

Hmmm...


The “nullius” nym is .onion-layered with meanings.  One for which I long cherished it is the implication that I am of nobody, from nobody, nobody’s.  (On the other side of the Nullian balance, I am nobody:  A pseudonymous ghost in the.nym.zone.)

I deemed this a fitting nym for the Bitcoin world, on grounds that Bitcoinum nullius est:  Bitcoin is nobody’s—“owned by nobody... controlled by nobody”, as livingancient observed.


(All emphasis and boldface are as in the original.)

---

As not hereto disclosed by me in public:  One of my motives which led to some recent unlucky events was my desire for someone to work with for an erotic Bitcoin art project.

For now, I will leave my intentions a mystery; but girls who have really gone Bitcoin may feel free to contact me if curious.

---

What’s the probability?  (...that “WANTED” poster did say “politically incorrect”, did it not?)

---

I think the least self-serving interpretation I could make is that the moderators of Meta may agree with this post from the first page:


(I also concur with the principle thereby stated.)

---

I agree that a thread created by my admirers, for the purpose of talking about me, should not become my daily personal soapbox; and I wouldn’t so spoil it.  But I do think the folks here may appreciate the occasional (many) word(s) from me, if and when I have something worthwhile to say on the topic.

(Note:  The foregoing is not the “diatribe”.)

Yes, you can buy Copper Membership and “wear” it when “Brand New”.  There is no reason to wait.  After you create your account, simply follow the instructions at:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=credit;promote

I myself was already wearing my Copper Membership when I made my first post.

N.b. that this can substitute for paying the “evil IP” fee, if you created your account through Tor, a VPN, or a proxy.  If you want Copper Membership, ignore the “unproxyban” instructions; and follow the above link instead.  The Copper Membership fee is larger than the “evil IP” fee, and will absolve you of the evil.  For Tor, etc. users who intend to go Copper anyway, purchasing it when “Brand New” will save a transaction fee:  1 tx to buy Copper, rather than 2 tx for “evil IP” + Copper.  (I am a Tor user:  All Tor, all the time.)

@theymos, please consider adding a link to the “credit;promote” page on the “credit;unproxyban” page with a brief explanation.  That would help users who want Copper anyway, and probably sell more memberships.

(Of course, all the foregoing is irrelevant to you, Jonas_SONDER:  As of this writing; you already have made 4 posts; and I see you at “Newbie” status.  The foregoing information is provided for the benefit of others.)

Congratulations, Quicksy!  In your study of the Book of Smear Tactics, you have finally reached the intermediate-level chapter titled “Begging the Question”.  I admit, I did tutor you earlier in this thread:


Given current fads in education, I think this is the point when I should pat you on the head, and boost your self-esteem.  Goooood joooooob, Quicksy!  Thumbs-up.  A gold star for your star-chart.

---

Yet still, you are a poor student.  A disappointment.  Just as you learned from me how to beg the question, you should also try as hard as you can to grasp some of my other lessons:


Too bad, it seems that the concept of not using smear tactics may be too advanced for your innate capacity of comprehension.  The concept of executing such a smear, you evidently understand all too well.

---

I admit that I myself have a red-pill addiction.  Lauda also seems to, judging by behaviour.  Very suspicious.

Because:


As for this quite reasonable question:


I already gave a reasonable answer:


When drafting those words (before RGBKey posted his auditing offer), I had considered mentioning persons including RGBKey as potential auditors.  I decided against it:  I should not try to entangle anyone in such a task, unless that person is already willing to apply his technical competence to the task of being a fair and rigorous “skeptical investigator”.  Not all scientific and engineering professionals would wish to deal with such a controversy.  I am glad that RGBKey offered to do so, fully of his own accord.

I will note that the professional scientists who usually do such investigations of famous psychics, etc. are fair and scientifically rigorous in their investigations.  Their own scientific reputations are on the line:  They would not kill their own credibility by presuming any conclusion in advance, or by applying anything other than their usual scientific standards as they do elsewhere.


I predict similarly.  But I hope otherwise.  Given how Alia’s ultimate answer has turned out to be that our “stupid equations” don’t apply because we don’t know the “intricacies” of her script, RGBKey’s offer of an audit is a challenge:  Put up, or shut up.

Last-minute add-on:


Some of my posts take much time to write, gather links and quotes for, etc.  I wrote the below part about auditing before RGBKey posted this.

I myself will vouch for RGBKey’s technical competence for performing such an audit.  I don’t know gambling; but I have interacted with RGBKey in the Development & Technology forum, and he knows his stuff.  I would trust the results of any gambling script audit performed by RGBKey.

What say you, Alia?

---

---

Pathetic.  This is where I stop even trying to argue, and just break out my popcorn.

Actually, I should have done that awhile ago.

---

TL;DR on Alia’s script and her arguments in favour of it.

---

You forgot Cloudflare:


Also, you’re preaching to the vicar.  Observe that my signature contains my e-mail address, the admonition “Use PGP!”, and the identifiers for two PGP keys (ECC for GPG 2.1+, Keybase, and some other implementations; RSA for everybody else).  And I have been vocal about my dismay at the abysmal state of PGP use amongst users of so-called “cryptos” (!):


As a 90s-era cypherpunk, I’ve been pushing PGP use for so long, to so little effect, that at this point I will do almost anything [NSFW] to raise user awareness of actual “crypto”.  (That thread started with general applied cryptography background at a beginner level; I had intended that when it really got going, lessons would move on to PGP/GPG use and also, OTR for chat.)

Anyway...


The full extortion threat is here:


That did strike me as a peculiarly stupid bluff to make, if it was a bluff.  But aTriz did avoid the contract; and rather than dropping some scandalous bombshell, Alia apparently returned his prepayment on it.  Moreover, I note, Alia had previously rattled a similar sabre at me (albeit much more weakly):


I cut that off cold; Alia only has from me a few bits of high-grade sex talk (PMed with PGP)—disclosure of which could moderately upset me just on principles of privacy, plus severely titillate the forum.  Nothing which could actually hurt me.

Given Alia’s propensity to rattle an extortionate sabre, I presume that what you quoted was a bold but badly-calculated bluff.


I think that if the person who started that thread was satified, then the matter can be considered resolved.  scam_detector seems unbiased; remember that he started by making serious accusations against me, too, in the alia scam thread (then dropped his accusations against me when I showed contrary evidence).  I will admit that I have a moderate positive bias toward aTriz, of the kind inevitable amongst human beings in social scenarios.  (N.b. that as of a few days ago, I had a strong positive bias toward Alia; and that did not stop me from changing my opinion based on credible evidence!)  Given your post history, you must admit that you have a strong negative bias toward aTriz—really, that you bear a grudge.  Whereas scam_detector seems interested only in detecting scams (for which reason, I will now pay close attention to any accusations he makes).  He locked the thread—not when Lauda publicly suggested it, but much later, when he decided it was appropriate.  I think that settles it.


True.  (suchmoon’s post on the same page, excerpted above, is an eye-opener on this point.)


The only possible point for whom?  Such an allegation is obviously your point; and you’re the only one who has made that allegation here.

As for Alia, I have advanced two different (but not mutually exclusive) hypotheses as to why Alia is doing this:  The “kook” theory of a self-described “degen” gambler fixated on the idea of a winning script; and the “long con” theory of a scammer with nothing to lose, who cooks up the ploy of an ill-designed “empirical” experiment she has a large chance of winning by blind luck.  Since there is no evidence other than Alia’s uncorroborated word of any script being actually used here (plus other reasons), I now lean strongly toward the latter theory—exclusively.


Interesting theory.  I note that this thread was started after the (in)validity of the signature contract had been broached, and many people were advocating that it should be voidable.  Means (that foolhardy vouch), motive (the signature contract), opportunity (obvious).  But that alone does not make a case beyond reasonable suspicion; any other evidence?


The weight of all evidence I have thus far seen is that aTriz got sucked into a situation where he was a bit starstruck, and made some foolhardy mistakes—even, yes, one which looks quite ridiculous.  The totality of the situation must be examined:  The vouch in question, the unprecedented signature contract, and also my own involvement.  (Remember that aTriz was seeking my signature, too, as I disclosed in the other thread.  In view of Alia’s close public association with me, I hope that my reputation for technical credibility did not improperly weigh in his eyes in favour of a script which I myself didn’t even know about until after the scam accusations broke.)  All this was examined, in the aTriz thread where aTriz was the topic.

Remember:  Many people got fooled here.  I myself got fooled, badly.  Even theymos got fooled—not so badly, but nevertheless.  There was a domino effect:  I looked to theymos’ neutral reporting of a fact (/r/GirlsGoneBitcoin verification) on Alia’s trust page; arguably, I may have read too much into it.  Via private as well as public communications, I am almost 100% certain that aTriz first heard of Alia due to me.  So, aTriz got fooled even worse than I did—in some part because I was fooled, and Alia was carrying my afterglow.  Of course, aTriz is responsible for his own decisions, just as I am for mine; but still, this is the simplest explanation, and the most likely.

---

Another idea:  Publicly commit a hash of the script:  Bit-for-bit, exactly the version which was provided to aTriz.  Perhaps even a keyed hash (HMAC).  I would be willing to produce and escrow a secret key for that purpose, under appropriate terms as for the purpose of this commitment, and the exact circumstances under which I would agree to disclose the secret.

This would fix the bit-for-bit identity of the script, as a reference point for any future investigation of it (whether publicly, or by a private auditor).

So, Alia, do you have a problem committing a SHA-256 here?  I don’t think the keyed hash would be necessary, for any script of nontrivial length.  (I would suggest that keyed hashes be used for such purposes as committing evidence of names, e-mail addresses, and other very short texts which could easily be bruteforced from databases of known identifiers.  That is a large mistake of many people who commit identity hashes.)

---

Another idea:  Private audit.

Alia, you yourself made this an issue:


If your ultimate answer is that your critics lack sufficient knowledge to judge your script because they haven’t seen it, then it is incumbent on you to grant such knowledge.

In both open-source and proprietary software, paid professional audits by independent third parties are an industry best practice.  Proprietary software is typically audited under NDA terms.  In this case, I seriously doubt that any credible expert would make of himself a laughingstock by accepting an ordinary audit job for a mathematically impossible script.  However, perhaps a credible auditor may be interested in approaching this as a “skeptical investigator”.  There do exist eminent scientists who make a hobby (or even a secondary career) out of investigating famous spoon-bending psychics, and the like.  Their investigations are not jokes; they are serious and scientifically rigorous.

Why don’t you ask some of your critics here if they’d be interested in taking a paid audit job under NDA?

(Note:  I am not offering to do this, for the following reasons:  (0) Obvious COI, which would present at best an appearance of impropriety; it needs to be an independent third party, who was never before involved with you.  (1) My lack of technical competence in the specialist subject of games of chance—a deficiency I intend to fix, but have not yet.)

---

s/Nobel Prize/Fields Medal/.  Which is much more exclusive, and would be almost unprecedented if Alia really be a woman.  Oh, don’t complain about my mention of an inconvenient fact; I’ve already been branded “politically incorrect”:

Interesting question.  It well may be the case that no script is being run now; and at best, the only evidence we have of a script now being run is Alia’s unsupported word.

However, I seriously doubt that Alia’s script be wholly non-existent.  Perforce, something must have been on-hand to provide to paying marks customers.  It simply would not do, if the script-selling scam business had to close down early due to paying customers complaining of having received nothing at all.

As for the question of aTriz disclosing his copy of the putative script, I think that raises a far stickier issue than that of the signature ad contract.  I am not familiar with the situation, other than what’s been discussed in public threads; but given Alia’s secretiveness about that script, I presume that it must have been provided to him under some sort of confidentiality terms.

For an analogy, consider PMs which Alia sent to me.  I have publicly disclosed a few of those; but I only did so when reasonably required for an investigative or otherwise evidentiary purpose, and I minimized the disclosures as much as practicable.  Even after what has happened to date, I would not dump out all the PMs in public.  That has nothing to do with my opinion of Alia, and everything to do with my principles about PMs.

If the script were reasonably required for an investigative purpose, then I would urge aTriz to disclose it.  But I see no such need here.

What Alia claims the script to do is mathematically impossible; and we don’t need to see the script for that to be proved.  By analogy, suppose that somebody disclosed to aTriz under strict NDA a design for a perpetual motion machine, or a recursive compressor.  Would it be required that aTriz violate the NDA for the purpose of publicly proving that the thing is bunkum?  (Obviously, that is a rhetorical question.)

I can think of some circumstances under which such a disclosure might be required, for other purposes; e.g., if an investigator were comparing gambling scripts sold by allegedly different people for the purpose of linking identities, identifying the real authors of such scripts, etc.  That question is beyond the scope of yours.

Parenthetically, I note that you claimed that the signature ad contract was still valid and binding on aTriz.  Whereas that agreement was clearly voidable.  Here, you are clearly setting the stage for some suggestion that aTriz actually disclose the script—predictably followed by pressure on him to disclose the script, and accusations that he’s protecting a scammer if he doesn’t cough it up.  Why the switcheroo, with you here insinuating that agreements can be freely ignored?  Not that I’m surprised to see this level of inconsistency from you.

---

Oh, here we go!  I wrote the above prediction, hit “Preview”, and was informed in red letters that another post had been made—this one.  “Here, you are clearly setting the stage for some suggestion that aTriz actually disclose the script—predictably followed by pressure on him to disclose the script, and accusations that he’s protecting a scammer if he doesn’t cough it up.”  Well, you don’t wait long building these things up, now do you?

@Regana, nice work.

As of Activity Period 1257, which starts 2018-03-13 19:40:00 UTC, I will be eligible for Full Member rank.  That means I will be permitted to wear an avatar.

For the long term, I will most likely make a nym.zone logo and use that as my permanent avatar—either that, or an insignia specific to “nullius”.  In the interim, however, I fancy a little image rotation; and for a start, I’d enjoy using some fan art!

Hmmm...



Unless something else comes up in the next ten days, I suppose that may become my first avatar.

Perhaps I may even embed some variation of this in my PGP key(s), as a “photo ID” (formally a “User Attribute Packet” (Tag 17), “Image Attribute Subpacket” (Type 1); see RFC 4880 §5.12).



Would it be convenient for you to provide source material, such that I could tweak the aspect ratio and text sizes in ways more suitable for different crops?

---

Last week, I began drafting for this thread a suitable “diatribe” (in YuTü.Co.in’s parlance).  It got put on hold, due to some unlucky forum drama.  Till I finish that, I may begin to work backwards and reply to others here, bit by bit.

I thank those who have been making friendly posts in this thread.

Cheers, all.

I hope you realize that given the nature of our prior relationship, your patent disrespect for maths is more embarrassing to me than any other part of this sordid affair.

It is worse than your being publicly caught by me in a lie, when I was searching for some means to prove your innocence and corroborate your identity.  (Whereas you claimed you knew were close IRL friends with “Dave” from “the best wallet recovery service”, Dave doesn’t know you—so says Dave.)

It is even worse than the evidence that you are actually a boy, as presented by credible people such as theymos, ibminer, and NLNico (i.e. not forum “you = satoshi = aliens!!” wackjobs).

It is just that bad.

If you had some deeper mathematical understanding than your critics, then you would shred their arguments in mathematical terms.  That’s what I do to idiots who wander into Dev & Tech.  If you claim that your critics’ arguments are


...then you would use your own superior knowledge of the script to explain with mathematical arguments where your critics are wrong.  Actual mathematical arguments, not the cock-eyed handwaving plus statistically invalid empiricism which you just presented as “mathematical proof”!

I hang my head in shame that I ever associated with someone who sneers at “muh math”.

---

Such pathetic unintentional comedy belongs in certain Off-Topic threads.

So...  How does your “mathematical proof” explain o_e_l_e_o’s easyscript?

@o_e_l_e_o, I want to invest!  Or buy your script!  (P.S., I am suing you in Bitcourt for trademark infringement due to the confusing similarity of your script’s name to that of easyseed.)

What you presented is neither “mathematical proof” in the rigorous abstract sense by which mathematicians use that term—nor a valid design for an empirical experiment, as explained by the “stupid equations” and results thereof set forth by RGBKey and o_e_l_e_o.

(And that’s “Mr. nully” to you.)

“Mathematical proof”.  Interesting definition of the term.  If the above-quoted text be “mathematical proof”, then I’m Satoshi Nakamoto and the Earth is flat.