Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 03:54:41 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: John Nash created bitcoin  (Read 21731 times)
BitWhale
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 283



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:06:14 PM
 #141

Ok that's great. Why are you so invested in proving it to me though?

I just having fun REKTing your illogic and making fun of you, because you deserve it for being an asshurl.

Ego? More on $millions and teaching at the same time. I am even teaching you. You'll appreciate it one day.

and I think that you are counting your eggs before they hatch.

Uh oh, another metaphor. Don't think too hard now. Wink

Maybe you are finally learning. So when are you going to STFU?

Btw, I had some worthwhile discussions with others in this thread and other threads. Which you've managed to totally bury with your shit-talking.

I agree with you, you are a shit-talking noise maker.

I don't know if you noted that I wrote I won't be creating any more unmoderated threads. That means in the future, all your shit talking will go poof. And I won't need to reply to it.

Are you done?

Yes, please do create that self-moderated thread. We all know you only like hearing yourself talk anyways lmao, it will be perfect for you.

I'll never be done, this is the bitcoin forums.  As long as spoetnik is here, I will be too.
1513439681
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513439681

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513439681
Reply with quote  #2

1513439681
Report to moderator
1513439681
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513439681

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513439681
Reply with quote  #2

1513439681
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513439681
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513439681

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513439681
Reply with quote  #2

1513439681
Report to moderator
1513439681
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513439681

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513439681
Reply with quote  #2

1513439681
Report to moderator
alkan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 148


View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:06:22 PM
 #142

Quote from: iamnotback
Besides the shadow elite are apt to love the altcoin I will launch, because they will see it as yet another speculation that falls under Bitcoin's umbrella.

Why would they love a currency that is designed to be truly decentralized? Please be more specific on that.

My favorite quote in the broader context is a comment made by Vitalik long time ago:

Quote
Bitcoin "solves" the problems behind Byzantine fault tolerance, quorum systems, etc by completely ignoring the past 30 years of research on the topic, and introducing a very simple construction that bypasses all of the issues entirely by using the concept of proof of work. Don't get me wrong, Bitcoin is a brilliant idea, but it's the sort of brilliant idea which is actually more likely to come to you if you were NOT bogged down by existing research on how to do things. Satoshi's primary gift was not deep knowledge, it was a fresh perspective.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:10:53 PM
 #143

Quote from: iamnotback
Besides the shadow elite are apt to love the altcoin I will launch, because they will see it as yet another speculation that falls under Bitcoin's umbrella.

Why would they love a currency that is designed to be truly decentralized? Please be more specific on that.

Because they don't think anything can be. They will view it as another speculation or if necessary something they can capture when needed.

My favorite quote in the broader context is a comment made by Vitalik long time ago:

Quote
Bitcoin "solves" the problems behind Byzantine fault tolerance, quorum systems, etc by completely ignoring the past 30 years of research on the topic, and introducing a very simple construction that bypasses all of the issues entirely by using the concept of proof of work. Don't get me wrong, Bitcoin is a brilliant idea, but it's the sort of brilliant idea which is actually more likely to come to you if you were NOT bogged down by existing research on how to do things. Satoshi's primary gift was not deep knowledge, it was a fresh perspective.

That describes John Nash.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:12:36 PM
 #144

Moderated threads are going to be much pleasant.

Every shit talker's noise will simply go poof.

Almost done here. This thread is not properly moderated.
BitWhale
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 283



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:14:21 PM
 #145

^ yes, then you will be able to control everything, won't it be great? Hell, you can even remove any reply to the thread so it's just nothing but yourself just how you like it buddy! It's like xmas for a sociopath.

I think it is YOU that's learning that you should stop replying to "idiots" that "aren't worth your time". You are nearly living by the words you preach brethren.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
 #146

Those on my Ignore list (BitWhale was added), will get their posts deleted without even being read. This will foster civilized discussion.

Eliminating the baboons can only make the S/N ratio much higher.
alkan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 148


View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:23:40 PM
 #147

Quote from: iamnotback
Besides the shadow elite are apt to love the altcoin I will launch, because they will see it as yet another speculation that falls under Bitcoin's umbrella.

Why would they love a currency that is designed to be truly decentralized? Please be more specific on that.

Because they don't think anything can be. They will view it as another speculation or if necessary something they can capture when needed.

I assume you meant "decentralized". But that leaves us with a dilemma:
a) They think it because they are very smart and proved the impossibility of decentralized currencies before releasing Bitcoin. Though that would mean that your design would turn out as impossible as well. Either because it's impossible as such or because it will finally get captured by them.
b) They didn't prove it and just think (or hope) it. In that case they would be very dumb (and thus cannot be called an "elite") since they must have been aware of the risk that someone would eventually come and fix Bitcoin's flaw of becoming centralized.
BitWhale
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 283



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:25:27 PM
 #148

I consider that a success, this "idiot" whom wasn't worth his "time" had to be ignored in order for him to live by what he said. I guess that's one way to do it.

now let's start the replying to the "others in the thread" about blank and pretend like we aren't actually directly talking to eachother. I love this part! :p
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:29:21 PM
 #149

Somebody forgot to take their meds today.
BitWhale
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 283



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:34:16 PM
 #150

Somebody forgot to take their meds today.

Would you like me to get you a glass of water? I think the Nash/millionaire delusions are coming back.

Those on my Ignore list (BitWhale was added), will get their posts deleted without even being read. This will foster civilized discussion.

Eliminating the baboons can only make the S/N ratio much higher.

 I thought i was on ignore?

I hope you don't say things you don't mean about your super-duper amazing multi-gagillion dollar altcoin you are creating, because what you SAY and DO are clearly two different things lmao.

God man, you really aren't as bright as you like to make yourself out to be are you? Why would you respond to that? I was literally done.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:39:37 PM
 #151

I think we could continue this forever.

Until his F5 key craps out.

Let's take this to the absurdium that he wants to prove.

When this thread has 100 pages of his nonsense, then we'll see if the moderator takes action or not.
BitWhale
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 283



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:40:45 PM
 #152

lol we could, or we could kiss and make up and you just admit that all skeptics aren't idiots and that we got off on the wrong foot.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:41:55 PM
 #153

I don't need to read, I can just type my reply.

Thought you were a clever fuck didn't you?

NaNaNa, NaNaNa, Hey, Hey, Goodbye.

Go take your meds dufus.
BitWhale
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 283



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:48:16 PM
 #154

lol what a perfectly worded comment. It's almost as if it was crafted to look like he didn't read and just replied Cheesy I guess we will never know.

You thought you were a clever fuck didn't you? Wink

Really though, i was done 3 comments ago. It's similar to how a cat gets bored after the mouse he's playing with dies.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:50:36 PM
 #155

Back for sloppy seconds I see.

No need to read, for we know what he be.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 10, 2017, 06:56:23 PM
 #156

Quote from: anonymous in PM
I will use moderated threads from now. I resisted because I despise censorship. But I need to consider that I am not of much value to the community if I am expending time fighting instead of producing.

Moderated threads = yes

I don't know if you've heard of Athene and his "Logic Nation" - https://logicnation.org/

Athene's Theory of Everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o

Science Finds God (documentary / sci-fi short film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXDw73rToPE

One of debates regarding his "cult" - "logic nation":
[Livestream Debate] Glink vs Athene: "Click" Cult, Logic, and Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWq1VNk6T2g

(doesn't matter if you watch those videos, just want to let you know how he - as someone with huge audience - deals with trolls)

He had 100k+ followers when he was gaming. Millions of people heard about him.
Seems like it was his plan for ~15 years to just build an audience
for his project (he wanted to have proof of concept before going public with it).
He explained (I don't have source for this atm, but heard it in one of debates) that
he must ban trolls (mainly from his twitch channel),
it's simply not worth his time to constantly explain basics over and over again.
He learned by trial and error e.g. he didn't ban trolls at first - he gave them a chance,
but seeing that trolling never ends, he bans them on sight:

Athene bans "fuckin moron" debater after just 1 min!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOTvuJnf4yk
Ok maybe he overreacted there a bit, but I couldn't find better example Smiley


And yes, he received some negative feedback, but in the long run it pays off.
Noone's gonna miss a few trolls.

So... it kinda reminds me of you.

To me as a reader, it makes sense. You are better off with moderated threads.
You are not only saving your time, you are also saving our (readers) time.
People who want to learn can just browse your post history - or simply click your links
(no need to ask questions which you explained few posts ago).

I just wanted to clear up doubts (if you had any) whether to moderate threads or no - go for it. It's worth it.

Thank you.

Yes I see now that is the only reasonable way to have quality discussions.
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


They're tactical


View Profile
April 10, 2017, 07:06:05 PM
 #157

It just occured to me now how reward seeking is completely the base variable for game theory algorithm  Shocked

https://sites.google.com/a/nau.edu/game-theory/about/philosophy

In Economics, Game Theory models the behavior of individuals as if they are participating in a game. Much like any other game, they are playing to receive some sort of payoff or benefit. The goal of the game is to attain the highest reward for themselves by using any strategies available to them. Risk dominance and payoff dominance are two related refinements of the Nash Equilibrium solution concept in game theory defined by John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten (Risk Dominance, 2013).

So it's still possibly someone familiar with game theory and mathematics. I was looking for links from mathematics jargon in the code.


Now I can completely see the equation with risk taking = computing a hash, reward = coin emission for the block miner, and how the thing is tied together with the proba/risk as work, and how low risk taking lead to seek for consensus on mutual benefice, and lead to an equilibrium.

Where the force of the market aka speculators/whales are still separated from decision power by risk taking of computing hash to win the reward, and they wont manipulate directly the network even if they own large part of the data it hold.

And it still make in sort everyone still will keep relaying the good transactions, either speculators/whales, miners, with different risk taking (buying the coin /  computing a proba hash (difficulty = 1/rateof (xx)), and different reward (coin emission for miner, high coin value for whales), well it still need more thinking on it to get it completely, but the similarities in thinking with game theory math start to appear to me  Grin

Im sure a good mathematician could pull out the 2x2 matrixes with coefficient being reward & difficulty (aka risk), weighted on if the risk is computing hash or buying coin, and deduce the good parameters for it to reach equlibrium on consencus. ( !  Grin fatal genius )

It's a bit more twisted than this because miner also get benefits from high price of the coin,  and also you would expect pow difficulty to get higher as trading volume & market cap increase due to higher coin value. And the inflation rate of the block reward also cross the speculators reward (and maybe involve a risk for them).

I really wonder if the parameters are pulled out of mathlab now  Huh Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Im sure it's a very simple 2d stuff in game theory now with difficulty/reward with trading and mining  Grin



But it's hard to get how he went from the math theory to the code, or from buisness problematic to math and to the code.

If he went from math and ideal concept to the application code, there is definately a break in the chain somewhere and at least 2 persons involved.

But satoshis nakomoto looks more like a project name based on concept of balance and source of balance, involving person from different expertise, and probably inspired by Nash in some part.

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 10, 2017, 10:09:31 PM
 #158

WOAH...guys....


guys... guys...

you're obviously overlooking the OBVIOUS here:

John Nash was AMERICAN....mkay???

Satoshi Nakamoto was JAPANESE.....

DUHHHHHHH.....

so he's not Satoshi, stupid.

unbelievable.


dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
April 11, 2017, 06:10:58 AM
 #159

The point of using 160 bits is compression of block size. What is the #1 issue of Bitcoin right now? Block size.

The 160 bits is more than the 128-bit security level of the 256-bit ECC.

It is a perfectly balanced and clever choice.

A priori, by hashing the public key, you don't win, but you LOSE space on the chain.  The reason is that you should consider an input and an output together.  A UTXO by itself is worthless if it is not spend one day.  So you have to consider both together.

Now, if in the output, you HASH the public key, you will have to publish that key openly in the corresponding future input, because otherwise, nobody will be able to check the signature.  If, on the other hand, you publish the public key at the output directly, without a hash, you don't have to repeat that at the corresponding input, you only have to specify the signature as everyone can go and get the public key to check it.  

--> hashing the public key adds a bit load equal to the hash length.

There are seemingly only two valid reasons to hash the public key:

1) you think that the public key scheme is vulnerable in the long term
2) you want to separate long term and short term security.

It is true that hashing the public key of 256 bits (which has a security of 128 bits) INCREASES its security to the level of the number of hashed bits if that number is between 128 and 256.  So it is true that a hashed key to 160 bits, is 160 bits secure, while the key itself is only 128 bits secure.  This 160 bit security is maintained until the key is published in a transaction.

However, let us make a small calculation.  Consider H the hash length, and K the key length.

Let us call long term security L, and short term security S.

Let us call B the total bit cost of an input and an output.

If there is no hashing, that is, if you directly publish the public key from its outset, then:

L = S = K/2

B_nohash = 3 K = 6 L = 6 S

(because there is the public key of length K, and the signature size is twice the key length, hence 3K)

If there is hashing, and we assume H between K and 2 K, then:

L = H

S = K / 2

B_hash = H + 3 K = L + 6 S

I will now show you why there's some craziness in this scheme:
Take Satoshi's system: L = 160 bits, S = 128 bits, which makes his B_hash(160,128) = 928.

Suppose that I would have taken L = 160 bits overall: B_nohash(160) = 960.

So I would only have used 32 bits on about 1 K more to have OVERALL SECURITY of 160 bits.

The hashing wins me 3% of room, to decrease the ECC security from 160 to 128 bits.

If I would have a direct address with a 320 bit ECC key, I would use about as much room on the block chain, as Satoshi's scheme, which LOWERS the security of ECC to 128 bit in the short term.

If I consider 128 bits enough, I would  have B_nohash(128) = 768 bits, which is about 20% less room.

In other words, apart from a suspicion on the fragility of ECC, there was no point in doing what he did.  And if there is a suspicion on that fragility, it is very wasteful to take a useless 256 bit key which would in any case easily be cracked by assumption.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 11, 2017, 06:22:09 AM
 #160

There are seemingly only two valid reasons to hash the public key:

1) you think that the public key scheme is vulnerable in the long term
2) you want to separate long term and short term security.

I already told you that if the public key were exposed for a longer (indefinite!) time, so you would need to increase the security of the public key.  But to what level given quantum computing may be coming?

And 256-bit was about the upper limit of what was available and well accepted in 2008.

I remember seeing that 256-bit was only expected to be recommended security for ECC for only another decade or so.

https://www.keylength.com/en/3/

https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/

I will now show you why there's some craziness in this scheme:
Take Satoshi's system: L = 160 bits, S = 128 bits, which makes his B_hash(160,128) = 928.

Suppose that I would have taken L = 160 bits overall: B_nohash(160) = 960.

So I would only have used 32 bits on about 1 K more to have OVERALL SECURITY of 160 bits.

The hashing wins me 3% of room, to decrease the ECC security from 160 to 128 bits.

You are not accurately accounting for the savings in portion of UTXO that must be stored in DRAM (for performance) versus what can be put on SSDs. Without that in DRAM, then the propagation time for blocks would be horrendous and the orphan rate would skyrocket (because nodes can't propagate block solutions until they re-validate all transactions due to the anonymity of who produced the PoW). 320-bit public keys (i.e. 160-bit security) in UTXO would require 100% more (double the) DRAM.

Satoshi just nailed you to the cross.  Tongue

And if there is a suspicion on that fragility, it is very wasteful to take a useless 256 bit key which would in any case easily be cracked by assumption.

You are not assimilating all the information I already provided to you.

The public keys can be hacked off the users' wallets. So we need more than trivial security there for the ECC public key cryptography.

Another reason (in addition to the compression of UTXO) to hash the values on the block chain is because when the use of a quantum computer is detected, we have some protection against chaos and can map out a strategy for burning the values to a new design securely. Hashes are much more likely to be quantum computing resistant.

Satoshi's cryptography choices are so clever and obtuse that even a very smart person as yourself takes a long time to finally grasp his genius. That indicates how genius Satoshi is. When we find that PhDs (college professors?) are offended by the notion of Satoshi being a genius, and such PhDs are committing Dunning-Kruger blunders when analyzing Satoshi's work, then we have a very strong indication that Satoshi's IQ was in the 180+ range. For example, when listening to Freeman Dyson or John Nash (180+ IQ for both) speak initially the unsophisticated observer (not you @dinofelis) might conclude they are not super intelligent. But that is simply because the observer is incapable of perceiving the depth of complexity being communicated so concisely. I have had public+private discussions with college professor Jorge Stolfi on Reddit in 2016 and generally thought him to be intelligent and mathematical, but I was shocked to read his myopic presentation to the SEC recently concerning the decision on the approval of the ETF.

If we appreciate how rare 180 IQ is, then we understand that the set of people who could have been Satoshi is quite small.

P.S. readers I don't know who @dinofelis is. And I would guess he is probably more formally trained than I am in math and Physics and other STEM fields. I have some areas of programming level expertise that he may not have (not sure about that though). My main talent is I am highly creative non-conventional thinker, similar to John Nash but lacking the full breadth of Nash's mathematical genius. I was no where near a teenage math genius but this could be because I was so into athletics and also I wasn't even exposed to learning materials until about 8th grade (my parents had me in inner city public schools and changing schools every 6 months). I did ace Calculus at a college in night session while I was still in high school. My SAT was high in math but not a perfect score (although I had a hangover and still slightly drunk when I took it). I wasn't interested in studying for standardized tests and I never showed up for my math classes in high school, yet still aced the exams. In short, I excelled on the things I was motivated to excel on but more interested in my intellectual and athletic hobbies than in conforming with the structured curriculum. At the university, I hated to attend lectures and would learn independently and also doing my own research on things I was interested in the library. And spending the rest of my time partying and playing sports.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!