Andreas M. Antonopoulos is "bullish on Ethereum"

[TheMage]

Andreas is doubling-down on desperation?

If I am a miner, I will support the soft fork and freeze the stolen funds. If the DAO holders offer us 50% of the stolen funds, we will do a hard fork.

If the miners can benefit from the hacking like this and the hacker does not benefit, he may think twice before his next hacking.

Other miners will mine more profitably by accepting his offer and thus have a greater hashrate.

Checkmate. Your vote has been economically overridden.

Andreas and Emin getting frantic and grasping for straws:

https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/744769932739624960

So 2 wrongs make a right?

Nope. You all had a chance to only get a 30% haircut, but you were determined to vote, thus commit 2 wrongs and break Nash equilibrium and lose 100%:

The "attacker" was very emphathetic. He offered a 30% haircut, but you n00bs weren't contented and so you now you will lose everything.

Stoopid.

What are you taking about 30% haircut?

In the attacker's original interview, he stated he stopped draining the DAO at 30% drained, as an olive branch of sorts. But this depends of course of you not stealing his rightfully gained tokens with your insecure 51% attack hard fork.

Since you've all voted to steal his tokens, he is forced to drain the rest of your tokens and redistribute them to a new set of miners who will replace your existing miners.

You guys passed up the best chance you had to not lose it all.

If this is certainty true, this "attacker" is pretty brilliant. Not that I encourage it, but he is playing game theory fairly well.


Also do you know who he is? You stated in a previous post you know him.

[vapourminer]

gotta admit, even as one who holds some eth and dao tokens, the entertainment value of watching this guy toss daos around like popcorn is worth losing it all

of course when "investing" in any crypto i kiss it goodby. if it works great. if it goes down in flames one can only hope its as fun watching it crash and burn as this one is.

[iamnotback]

If this is certainty true, this "attacker" is pretty brilliant. Not that I encourage it, but he is playing game theory fairly well.

Also do you know who he is? You stated in a previous post you know him.

Mircea Popescu (aka MPOE, MP, or MPeX) is brilliant:

VS
Fight!!!!

Judging by this, the maverick Mircea Popescu seems to be taking credit:

http://trilema.com/2016/to-the-dao-and-the-ethereum-community-fuck-you/

Quoth MP:

Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

Please tell me why the next G20 meeting can't address this email exchange as a serious threat to their collective authority and resolve to make necessary decrees from the EU to provide the necessary legal authority to prosecute MPOE.

Also MPOE you are taking a huge personal risk here. You better not have the slightest mistake as they might find it easier to take you down with a trumped up charge.

If all else fails, a fiery car accident.

I admire people with balls but combined with some basic common sense. It does me no good to associate with people who are so careless so as to actively seek their own destruction.

You seem to feel very indignant about this and have the sort of Paul Revere attitude of "give me liberty or give me death".

I just think there are much smarter ways of fighting than out in the open. The quality of ones weapons and strategy determines if they are the victor, not the quality of resolve alone.

The Apaches were never defeated because they didn't fight in the open:

http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/02.html

I think you would have been much better served to have replied that you need to be legally indemnified before releasing private data. That is all you needed to say. You talk too much. Although you are articulate, you are clearly not an attorney and you should hire one immediately and STFU.

Note I was banned from tortilla's new forum cryptocrypt.org for essentially stating the prior paragraph.

Edit: essentially you are doing political grandstanding. You can't beat society at its own game. Politics is not the successful strategy.

Above "tortilla" was rpietila.


Below I found "MPeX" trying to prove P ≠ NP:

I still believe there is some insight to gleem from the observation (conjecture or proven?) that converting deterministic intractable problems into tractable problems makes them nondeterministic and unbounded in entropy, but I am not seeing yet how to frame it in a way that proves anything. Perhaps proving that the conversion must be unbounded would prove P ≠ NP. I need to contemplate that.

On proving P ≠ NP, I do not understand why it can't be proven that the algorithmic Kolmogorov complexity of the "traveling salesman problem" is at least O(n²(2ⁿ-n-1)), i.e. an exponential lower bound, which is just below the O(n²2ⁿ) of Held-Karp algorithm which is the best known algorithm  

My logic is so simple, that I must be missing something.

At best the algorithm can cache so optimal computation of each grouping of cities will only be computed once (i.e. the number of unique times), by Reed's law we get 2ⁿ-n-1 groupings of cities. And for the first leg of the path possibilities, Metcalf's law tells us there are n² possible unique links between cities.

Afaics, it is definitionally impossible to compute at fewer algorithmic steps than the Kolmogorov complexity, because that is the minimum information content of the algorithm, i.e. the entropy.

Even if we applied some heuristic such as grouping cities in clusters, this would not be an absolute assurance of the optimum path. There is no way to get the assurance while reducing the deterministic algorithm complexity below the Kolmogorov complexity.

Since this algorithm is NP-hard and the related NP-complete problem can be reduced to it, then every problem in NP has the same lower bound. The Independent Set on a planar graph is listed an exception of NP-complete problems being EXP, but this is for edges of the graph that can't intersect, which obviously the "traveling salesman problem" can't be reduced to without some exponential blowup remapping because the links between cities can overlap.

All the NP-hard (and NP-complete reduced on them) problems revolve around exhaustively searching an exponential set of unique possibilities for an optimum. The Kolmogorov complexity can't be reduced to polynomial, because there can't exist a short-cut that destroys information and still is optimum. Once the computation is below the threshold of the Kolmogorov complexity, the result can't be deterministically optimum.

Here is a nearly duplicate proof, but he fails to multiply by n².

One of the similar attempts at a proof I've seen is this one which also attempts to prove a lower bound of the algorithmic complexity. And in his 2014 update, he mentions Kolmogorov complexity as the justification.

Another paper on quick glance appears to try to prove all NP-complete problems are a clustering problem that can't be solved in polynomial time.

This is very well written.

P.S. I was amazed to stumble onto an attempted proof by our very own cohort MPex.


Edit: A possible reason my idea about doesn't work in a proof, from the researcher who discovered the NP complexity class:

...

If the "attacker" exposes him/herself and he/she is in the US as he said in the open letter, I think he could be sent to prison for the hacking with bad intent.

MP is the person who drained the DAO. Did you read my post above where I wrote to verify the Keccak hash?

MP is the antithesis of Craig Wright. He does not bullshit. MP is the one who did this. He is surely capable of it.

Trivial factoid: MP and rpietila were enemies since before 2013. And in 2013, MP sent AnonyMint a private message offering collaboration.

AnonyMint has grown to respect MP as a maverick peer, and in some respects in awe of MP. MP's support of Blockstream could end up causing a conflict between MP and AnonyMint at some point in the near future.   Titans will do battle. Prepare your cupboard supply of popcorn.

I am confused by MP's support of Blockstream, because I thought he was for small blocks and was willing to kill XT to defend the status quo (i.e. Classic):

DA: The people behind ethereum are deceptive, for example everyone with a clue (Adam Back, Gregory Maxwell) knows that there is 0% chance for “CASPER” proof of stake to work, but yet they advertise it.

Note TPTB_need_war was the first person pointing out that Casper wouldn't work in the Ethereum Paradox thread and also on Reddit. Yet MP gives Blockstream credit for TPTB's research.  

[iamnotback]

Somebody please message Andreas and tell him to pick up the damn phone because he is veering off course.

And I guess it is lost cause to try to inform Gregory Maxwell that my username is not 'iamnotblack'.

Mircea Popescu, the pragmatic genius hacker who drained the DAO in order to defend crypto-currency against retards who want to centralize crypto-currency, has written something about contracts which I entirely agree with. In fact, my conceptualization of the way a DAO should be constructed is based on the similar insight, and I arrived at my insight independently and before reading the following epistle.

Let's not forget the Spaniards traded to the native a mirror for his acreage, then employed the force of contracts to enforce the absurdity.

Traditionally, contracts are instruments of torture. People agree to be married (thus entering into, of course, a Marriage Contract) and then have to suffer their spouse whether they'd like to or not.

...

The problem with this holy institution that has carried us so very far and fed us so very well is that it has costs, and those costs have the unfortunate property that they mount with use.

...

Why would the cost of enforcing a contract increase with the amount of contracts already entered into ? Well, because as people use them people also look for ways to abuse them. As these ways are found they have to be patched. As the patches are applied new holes are found, so new patches are issued. Sometimes the patches work better in some cases than others, in the end it's not even obvious which would be the proper case a contract falls into, the administration of all this has some costs and moreover due to the adversarial nature of contractsvii there's always someone with an incentive to argue absolutely anything, no matter how "insane". Besides, what's insane anymore once we have contracts ?

...

I know plenty of people who have dispensed with even entering into contracts altogether, as a point of principle. Silicon Valley deals would be anywhere between one third and two thirds undocumented to any degree - only when companies are about to go public does a mad rush commence to retroactively document years' worth of... contracts, they would be, except they weren't. Why not ? Because contracts are just too damned expensive, both to enter into rationally and then to enforce against the other party. The attempts mostly end up as a competition of "who has the largest bank account" and therefore can afford the best lawyers, and since this is known at the outset the only real believers in the entire contract-with-enforcement construct are, predictably, the very large corporations.

...

And so here we are today : contract litigation is a great way to earn a living as a lawyer, a premier way to generate that mostly fake "social mobility" and a great way for Apple, Samsung and obviously the US government to fill their otherwise idle time during board meetings. Most common claims are not pressed, and in the rare instance they are pressed would end up in something called "Small Claims", which is much akin to the lost and found box they used to keep in train stations and movie theatres.

...

Who today would or will be able to set aside the perhaps justified objections of the disenfranchised parties (which would necessarily exist) to create a new code, and somewhat reset the clock ? Nobody, practically speaking, it'd have to be done by "consensus" and "negotiation" which is to say it'd be much better for it to not be done at all. In short, this great dragon called Contract has flown as far as he can. He is old now, and tired. His bones ache, his mood is sour, he will soon go below the ground. We will forever remember it, or at any rate I will, but for what he was in his youth, and that youth was much, much before your parents were being born I would think.

So what now ?

Well... I'm glad you asked. There's a spiffy young fellow I'm betting on : the GPG Contract. He's also a. an agreement b. reached by willing participants. But that's all.

What do I mean "that's all" ? I literally mean, that's all. A contract which is entered into by willing participants and won't be enforced. Nonsense ? IKR!

Except not really. Obviously entering into a GPG Contract thinking it's an Old Contract is nonsense, and will get you burned. In fact the history of "scams" in the Bitcoin space is pretty much this, people behaving with what should really be GPG Contracts as if they were Old Contracts, and then discovering midway through that... well... it doesn't really work that way.

All this aside, non-enforced contracts, contracts which the participants uphold out of their own free will rather than at the behest of some third party or by the point of the sword of some blind demigoddess are a thoroughly fascinating turn of events. For one, they are fundamentally human, they're one step up on the stairwell of freedom. Do it if you think it's right is certainly a lot more empowering, civilised and overall good than "do it or else". For the other, they allow all the enforcing to happen before the actual contract is entered into. Old contracts contain unknown future costs, nobody can ever tell you exactly how much will you have to pay in legal fees to recoup this five hundred owed on whatever deal. GPG Contracts don't have any future costs at all. The cost of enforcing one after the fact is always going to be zero, pretty much because there's never going to be anything you need (or indeed can) do.

And it doesn't stop here. I have always thought the principal utility of Bitcoin is that it renders any sort of mandatory taxation model unviable. I am firmly persuaded that as Bitcoin takes holdix taxes will have to return to what they were in ancient Greece : willing donations to the state treasury, and something people openly took pride in. This shift will bring about all the improvements we were vainly trying to achieve in the old money paradigm, such as public accountability and reasonable expenditure in one fell swoop : good luck getting people to donate to the police department if they don't like the police. And good luck with the welfare programs, for sure.

Add to that a shift of contracts from the old model to the new and suddenly you have - and I mean this quite literally - a new Renaissance. Man at the center of all things. Man, the willing enforcer of his own promises. Man, the willing contributor to the wealth of an obviously much reduced, but by that fact probably much nicer, lovable and huggable cute little state.

I'm crying with joy over here, my toes are curling in untold glee, I have little doubt that I shall live to see this, all of it. And for the first time in many, many years I feel again like the world is worth living in.

Techno-anarchism. Amen!

[iamnotback]

I think the "hacker" or the DAO holders are trying their best to persuade the miners to work in their favour.

Indeed . The Daoattacker is playing with ethereum devs and staying one step ahead-

http://pastebin.com/9MRVDC9h

That could be a scam. You send bitcoin, DAO or Etheruem to them, but they might not send the in contracts.

Has anybody in the forum tried to contact the hacker and get 20x profit? It seems too good to be true. Why did not the hacker keep the 20x profit to themselves.

The game theory point is to share 70% of the spoils with other mutineers in order to ensure a fork (which voids the contract) is impossible to achieve.

Since the up to 15% of the money supply drained from the DAO is not sufficient to pay for mining hashrate forever, it is best to have others who have a vested interest in mining on the non-forked chain.

It also appears to be a test of whether anyone in crypto-currency really gives a shit about decentralization. Because if Ethereum forks, then it means it has been 51% attacked with arbitrary politics. Thus crypto-currency as a defense against the evils of Corporatism and the State is dead (if Ethereum's fork becomes the precedent for what people want).

Smooth and I discussed this in more detail, which I linked to upthread.

If Ethereum is able to fork and prosper after the fork, it is an sad outcome for those of us who wanted to change the world for the better.  

The "attacker" wrote:

@cryptodevil Vitalik Buterin is a an empty shithead. This literally means that where human beings normally carry gray matter, he instead used to carry brown matter, but it was taken out. So now his strangely shaped skull is just a foul smelling empty receptacle.

He's not the only one in this situation...

...Groups of scammers use these idiots, exactly like you would use a table...

...In the case of Ripple, the group of scammers was just that, a criminal gang. In the case of Doge the group of scammers was just a bunch of marketing retards...

Nevertheless, Bitcoin (no, not "cryptocurrencies", there is not nor can ever be such a thing as "cryptocurrencies") has put an end to all that. So it dun work no more.

Does that answer your question ?

His opinion of the merits of consensus voting:

The point remains that there exist customers whose custom no one wants. They will gather together somewhere, like all mammals ever do. Just by the simple fact of aggregation they do not achieve notability, nor is the headcount a valid reason to consider any position. Democracy, much like socialism, much like any other utopia, makes for excellent books and movies about history, but for appalling actual history and even worse living conditions. Let's just consider it buried alongside communism and move on.

...

I hope you get it, but in the end it makes absolutely no difference whether you get it or don't. The world is changing regardless.

A side dish of the fallout from the Fetlife drama is probably also indicated, at the very least the part that goes

IV. Frantic activity is not much of a cover-up for impotence. The true driver of all this "we protest Trilema for making a fool of Fetlife" is exactly the same mental process that drives "Dancing Man", and "kickstarter successes" where some randomly selected derp gets paid a chunk of change for inventing a can of Pepsi or whatever : the derps wish to convince the world, and in convincing the world convince themselves that their appreciation is valuable, and their displeasure dangerous. Because if it were the case that indeed their upvote was worth something, and their downvote had some sort of impact, then they themselves could be said to have value. Some, perhaps not much, but some. Some! Which some is a whole heck of a lot better than none whatsoever, which just so happens to be the case.

TD;LR: You're nothing to nobody. Get your head out of your ass.

He explains that the individualized perspective Web-of-Trust is the proper alternative to consensus, which is also my design for a decentralized social network and the correct design for a DAO-like disruption of consensus organizations:

II. The WoT works by reducing the unknowns problem.i It allows the user - any user - to confidently identify the sources of information, both in the negative and in the positive. That is to say, if sources of information exist, the user may by the WoT find them, and safely assume that should no sources of information be thus found, no sources of information in fact exist. It further allows the user to judge the quality, reliability and precision of said sources, and this independent both of the direct source and of the counterparty he's examining.

His opinion on whether Ethereum will survive his "attack" (and remember he also did the Mt.Gox attack):

The whole of ETH and DAO was a con to start with. Bunch of rich btc invectors wanted a new play toy. Don't worry folks the price will shoot back up because no one cares if there is security risks or a Ponzi that will never be used by ordinary citizens

DAO is a casino that just got robbed buy like all casinos they never fall because of human greed.

That [bolded] part is right.

[Minecache]

Gud to see AA backing ETH. He is a very eloquent, smart gentleman and one of the best brains in the crypto-lands. So very reassuring for all that he's an ETH hodler.

[iamnotback]

Gud to see AA backing ETH. He is a very eloquent, smart inebriation and one of the best trips in the crypto-lands. So very reassuring for all that he's an ETH hodler.

Alcoholics Anonymous is backing mETH? What a surprise.

[iamnotback]

The "attacker" wrote:

...

Nevertheless, Bitcoin (no, not "cryptocurrencies", there is not nor can ever be such a thing as "cryptocurrencies") has put an end to all that. So it dun work no more.

Regarding the linked blog article that the "attacker" provided in the quote in which he explains that altcoins which employ proof-of-work are impossible to secure, he is not aware of my solution to that dilemma. And that is unprofitable proof-of-work as a matter of protocol forced on payers and changing the proof-of-work algorithm such that ASICs can't obtain orders-of-magnitude improved efficiency over CPUs. There are other details and advantages over the centralized clusterfuck BitCON.

If the "attacker" is really serious about changing the world, he should stop talking to Blockstream and start talking to me.

[iamnotback]

If the "attacker" is successful at winning the majority hashrate to defeat the fork, I expect a dump down quickly to $7 out of the corner of currently closing wedge.

Might get a bounce from there as many might perceive this as a victory for a decentralized Ethereum, although then potentially start the lawsuits from all the DAO losers. So a bounce could later be followed with a series of declines, eventually taking it down < $1. But as you say, this might take a while.

There are other scenarios though.

That could happen. So why would the miners accept the bribe and destroy a long term business. i hope the miners will make a wise decision.

Forking Ethereum destroys their long-term prospects. The following linked poll only confirms 23% of the people here are retards (the other 77% might also be retarded but it isn't confirmed by the poll):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516799.0


The rest of us (those who aren't retards) will create a replacement for Ethereum which doesn't break the entire goal of crypto.

[iamnotback]

Understand that all your altcoins are either centralized clusterfucks (like Ethereum and include all PoS block chains) or they can be destroyed by an attacker very easily:

r0ach is full of shit babbling on about how great Monero is. Monero is insecure. The following is from the attacker who is draining the DAO and who did the Mt.Gox attack:

The "attacker" wrote:

...

Nevertheless, Bitcoin (no, not "cryptocurrencies", there is not nor can ever be such a thing as "cryptocurrencies") has put an end to all that. So it dun work no more.

Regarding the linked blog article that the "attacker" provided in the quote in which he explains that altcoins which employ proof-of-work are impossible to secure...

This difficulty attack requires a much higher percentage of the hashpower than a 51% attack.

The article does make a valid point. If a coin uses the same mining algorithm as an "ASIC Goliath coin" that has gone through more than one generation of ASICs, then it can be attacked using the now obsolete first generation ASICs from "ASIC Goliath coin" that would be otherwise worthless junk. The example of Dogecoin in the article would only work if Litecoin goes through more than one generation of ASICs and Dogecoin were not merged mined with Litecoin. Extrapolating  this attack to Monero fails because:
1) Monero uses CryptoNight not SHA 256, Ethash, Scrypt etc.
3) CryptoNight is ASIC resistant. There are no ASICs for CryptoNight let alone multiple generations of ASICs
2) Monero has by far the greatest hashrate of all the CryptoNight coins.

Incorrect. The point is that no matter what proof-of-work algorithm an altcoin employs, those who are protecting Bitcoin will rent enough mining hash rate to fuck your coin forever. They only have to rent it for a short period of time, and your difficulty will be so high that it will never produce a block again. And all the money in the chain will be unspendable for a very, very, very long time.

The "attacker" has the resources to do that to any proof-of-work altcoin which doesn't have the level of hashrate of Bitcoin.

Of course the altcoin can then manually reset the difficulty lower using a fork, but then the attacker can repeat again. It will quickly become clear that the altcoin is fucked.

If Monero starts to approach $1 billion market cap (or perhaps much less if the liquidity is very high, which it is for Monero), this attacker will destroy Monero and profit by shorting.

[NattyLiteCoin]

If anyone that's computer savvy (looks at imnotback) wants to implement the code from goldyloxx and make some coin, ill fund the project😀 Hit me up on PM!

AA loves crypto, I listen to him a lot and have huge respect for him. He cemented my love for this thing years ago. I think he's internally mortified by this event as it's the second biggest black eye in the history of crypto. he's idyllic, so he needs to be bullish on the only other crypto that eclipsed a 1B dollar market cap.

[iamnotback]

Incorrect. The point is that no matter what proof-of-work algorithm an altcoin employs, those who are protecting Bitcoin will rent enough mining hash rate to fuck your coin forever. They only have to rent it for a short period of time, and your difficulty will be so high that it will never produce a block again. And all the money in the chain will be unspendable for a very, very, very long time.

If you are talking about Monero the difficulty retargets at every block, such attack is not possible. Cryptonight isn't very ASIC-friendly so you'll have to spend in real GPUs and CPUs to attack.

Incorrect.

If Monero starts to approach $1 billion market cap (or perhaps much less if the liquidity is very high, which it is for Monero), this attacker will destroy Monero and profit by shorting.

Same logic could be applied at Bitcoin if the bankers decide to kill it as they are the "threatened group" and the only ones with enough resources to mount any kind of network attack.

Incorrect again. Try again to read the "attacker's" blog article.

[iamnotback]

You are not showing me how someone attacking will make impossible to produce Monero blocks again, also did you just quoted yourself as the true? lol

The "attacker's" blog is interesting but he is not god nor the bankers.

It is futile to repeat the logic I already linked you to. I can't argue with someone who doesn't comprehend math. Sorry. You'll just have to live in your fantasy world where you think you are correct.

[iamnotback]

The DAO "attacker" has responded to me:

http://trilema.com/2014/the-woes-of-altcoin-or-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-cryptocurrencies/#comment-117673

It seems 20% of the miners in the ethpool.org do not agree with that. They do not think taking 4% etherum out of circulation is a good idea.
http://ethpool.org/stats/votes

The "attacker" is winning. That was much less than 20% when I looked it a few hours ago.

Nobody in the DAO will ever get their tokens back.

Checkmate.

The "attacker" (aka noble crypto baron) has gained another 15% of support, now at 35% who won't vote for the fork. The baron will win. It is an economic certainty. Money talks, BS walks.

This bullshit about Ethereum will die if The DAO holders lose their funds is FUD. Ethereum will die if you fork it. Don't make the mistake of investing with retarded crowds, as you'll end up bankrupt and retarded.

[Minecache]

If the "attacker" is successful at winning the majority hashrate to defeat the fork, I expect a dump down quickly to $7 out of the corner of currently closing wedge.

Might get a bounce from there as many might perceive this as a victory for a decentralized Ethereum, although then potentially start the lawsuits from all the DAO losers. So a bounce could later be followed with a series of declines, eventually taking it down < $1. But as you say, this might take a while.

There are other scenarios though.

That could happen. So why would the miners accept the bribe and destroy a long term business. i hope the miners will make a wise decision.

Forking Ethereum destroys their long-term prospects. The following linked poll only confirms 23% of the people here are retards (the other 77% might also be retarded but it isn't confirmed by the poll):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516799.0


The rest of us (those who aren't retards) will create a replacement for Ethereum which doesn't break the entire goal of crypto.

What's the goal of crypto? I didn't realise it had been published. Or are you rather trying to speak out of turn for the rest of us?

[iamnotback]

I'll be going quiet.

I just have one more thing to say at this time.

No forks!

Charles, I don't think you sufficiently emphasized Bruce Fenton's points. You provided a link that seems lost in a sea of the mix of historical storytelling with a smidgen of your self-aggrandizing verbiage, so I doubt most readers even read what Bruce wrote.

Crypto is Not Politics

I keep reading arguments about how The Will of The People should decide. And how this is the only fair and equitable way. And I am here to say this is 100% retarded bullshit and any one who repeats it (and nonchalantly dismisses this!), is retarded.

What distinguishes the intention of Satoshi's block chain invention from the world we had before it, is that it eliminates politics. The technical reason is because due to the Nash equilibrium, then no one (not even mining nodes) have any fucking control.

If we destroy the Nash equilibrium with a 51% attack (aka fork) by not honoring the decentralized protocol, then we fall into a no-man's land of ambiguous interpretation and the brutality of the majority.

It is as simple as that. Either we choose to honor the code and protocol, or we go back to the depressing clusterfucked world we have before Satoshi.

Now the other problem is that BitCON is also becoming centralized because of economies-of-scale in mining. We haven't yet perfected Satoshi's invention. But that should not deter us from our ideals.

If you support forks, you violate everything Satoshi tried to do for the world.

No forks! No Blockstream forks either! Offer proof-of-burn if you want to propose new features on a new block chain, so that people are autonomous with their money.

And any arguments about empathy and intent in contract law are up against moral hazard which leads to the aforementioned clusterfuck of brutality. Don't reward retarded speculators for not doing due diligence and their derelict incapable developer idols, because they carry the mental affliction of those who want the clusterfucked world that existed prior to Satoshi's invention.

[AlexGR]

If you are talking about Monero the difficulty retargets at every block, such attack is not possible. Cryptonight isn't very ASIC-friendly so you'll have to spend in real GPUs and CPUs to attack.

Renting cpu power shouldn't be a problem.

[smooth]

If you are talking about Monero the difficulty retargets at every block, such attack is not possible. Cryptonight isn't very ASIC-friendly so you'll have to spend in real GPUs and CPUs to attack.

Renting cpu power shouldn't be a problem.

It enormous quantities it is. I did some estimates here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520691.msg15312985#msg15312985

[iamnotback]

The reason the ETH price rose is because the attacker fucked up by not entirely draining the DAO when he had the chance, and a white hat attack has instead drained the remaining tokens of the DAO into child split contracts which are controlled by whales who promise to not only perform a refund to DAO investors, but also try to infiltrate the attacker's child split contracts to disrupt his ability to cash out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4p7mhc/update_on_the_white_hat_attack/

So we can see on the chart in my prior post that the price was about to drop like a rock as expected, but the white attack had started just in time to prevent the price drop.

I support the white hat attack, as it adheres to the code. This is a much better solution than forking.

Unfortunately this incident revealed the true attitudes of Vitalik and Gavid Wood, in that they don't respect decentralization. For Ethereum to be respected again, those two need to be banished from any leadership roles.

Edit: the attacker's website appears to be under attack by someone.

[iamnotback]

The question in my mind is will this prevent the fork proposed by the devs of Ethereum?

They may still need a soft fork to steal the attacker's 3.5M ETH:

This is being heavily debated, so keep in mind this is my opinion only. Roughly speaking, yes. A soft fork with a clever one way whitelisting mechanism + a draconian accounting system (which the Robin group has already mostly done) could recover nearly or up to 100% of the DAO funds (over many, many months of course).

That said, a hard fork still stays (IMHO) the simplest, fastest , safest way forward, in the sense that both the soft and hard fork share many of the same attributes (they both require a code upgrade, and the 'hard fork' only affects the relevant transactions). So one wonders the utility of going through all the trouble and risk when the application is nearly identical and it could be all over in the course of a couple of weeks.

I reserve the right to change my opinion on this of course, as I said, many different approaches are being debated at the moment

Thus they establish the precedent of whitelists, blacklists and 666 brutality of the majority consensus (which we know is always ultimately a power vacuum controlled by TPTB).

Vitalik and Wood both showed their true colors as being against the ideals of decentralization and trustless block chain. Did you see this slide Wood put up denying the importance of decentralization:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbT-mKBU6bo#t=444