Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[1714642356]

1714642356

[1714642356]

1714642356

[1714642356]

1714642356

[1714642356]

1714642356

[Nomad88]

About this: Is there any actual evidence to suggest anybody (British Intelligence or otherwise ) is actively infiltrating bitcoin discussion forums? Srsly. If not, the implication is sort of absurd and insulting. Innit?

Yes, there is some evidence, being that it was discussed as a means of attacking bitcoin in some research* and moderators on forums and social media sites have seen some good evidence representing such behavior. Using agent provocateurs is a common tool that states routinely use and we should expect this behavior to be occurring now , and if not in the near future. In the end it doesn't really matter if it is merely a troll, shill, aggressively disruptive advocate, or  agent provocateur siring up division in our ecosystem.... we should address these concerns head on by not feeding into the personal attacks, discussing the facts clearly, avoiding arguments when possible, and ignoring abusive individuals.

*   https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1231/RAND_RR1231.pdf

Wow. This is really interesting. Gravity of bitcoin keeps surprising me. There was documentry on youtube about bitcoin and a guy was finishing his bitcoin lecture with something like "yes, they are scared bitcoin will be used for illegal activities but they are far more terrified rest of us will start using it". I guess authtorities are really worried.

[BitUsher]

Yes, there is some evidence, being that it was discussed as a means of attacking bitcoin in some "research" and moderators on forums and social media sites have seen some good evidence representing such behavior.

I favour the occum's razor approach. There are plenty of twisted and resentful little shits with no shortage of time on their hands perfectly willing to do it for free for their own gratification.

Agent provocateurs don't have to work for the CIA. They could also be a troll from buttcoin who hates bitcoin , a former bitcoin user who has ragequit, a supporter or dev from a competing alt coin, a organized attack from one of many private blockchain startup, someone who politically hates Austrian economics, anarchists, libertarians, ect... there are many sources of "haters" that are trying to disrupt our ecosystem.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Wow. The explosion of puss, poison, and vitriol seems to suggest some kind of boil has been lanced.

Crassic has failed, what's next now on the maximally FUD bitcoin agenda I wonder?

[blunderer]

Top result from https://www.google.com/search?q=agent+provocateur&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Agent Provocateur
Luxury lingerie from Agent Provocateur. Shop for exquisite...
(note: EDGY. Edgy and sexy. That's who we are )

[JayJuanGee]

Have any of you actually listened to the Gavin interview?

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-282-bitcoin-classic-with-gavin-andresen

First question was about national security letter, which of course he could not answer, second question?

"When were you co-opted and why are you trying to destroy bitcoin?"

Answer: (after 10 seconds of maniacal laughter and umming and awing) a couple years ago, and yes, I've stopped beating my wife.  <- making the question seem ridiculous is a common tactic for answering a question that incriminates you without lying. Anyone who was not compromised would simply and indignantly say "I am not compromised and I'm not trying to destroy bitcoin." But he doesn't, he admits to being compromised and then tries to imply the question is ridiculous so that, by association, his answer will also be considered ridiculous.


By his own words, he is compromised. It should have been obvious the minute he started advocating for 8GB blocks, but some of you are still oblivious.

Just listen to it, it's in the first two minutes of the show.

I listened to the whole show, including the first couple of minutes as you described.

I also made a posting about Gavin.

Here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13896428#msg13896428


Ultimately I agree with your conclusion that Gavin his not coming off as trustworthy; however, those first couple minutes are not a true indication of anything except that the question was a kind of attempt at a joke in which the moderators were mocking various claims made within the bitcoin community.  Maybe Gavin did not know that the question was coming, but it was clear that everyone knew it as a softball set of question.. to start out in kind of fun and to show Gavin that largely the moderators did not believe the outrageous claims against Gavin.

Anyone in the public eye in bitcoin realize that many unfair claims are thrown at persons in the public light, and so with those starting off questions they were largely empathizing with him.

I hear you about Gavin's kind of nervous laugh in the beginning and around those two questions, but since Gavin was not really being challenged, without knowing more, it would not be fitting to read too much into the initial nervous laughing in that short context.

[shmadz]

Have any of you actually listened to the Gavin interview?

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-282-bitcoin-classic-with-gavin-andresen

First question was about national security letter, which of course he could not answer, second question?

"When were you co-opted and why are you trying to destroy bitcoin?"

Answer: (after 10 seconds of maniacal laughter and umming and awing) a couple years ago, and yes, I've stopped beating my wife.  <- making the question seem ridiculous is a common tactic for answering a question that incriminates you without lying. Anyone who was not compromised would simply and indignantly say "I am not compromised and I'm not trying to destroy bitcoin." But he doesn't, he admits to being compromised and then tries to imply the question is ridiculous so that, by association, his answer will also be considered ridiculous.


By his own words, he is compromised. It should have been obvious the minute he started advocating for 8GB blocks, but some of you are still oblivious.

Just listen to it, it's in the first two minutes of the show.

I listened to the whole show, including the first couple of minutes as you described.

I also made a posting about Gavin.

Here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13896428#msg13896428


Ultimately I agree with your conclusion that Gavin his not coming off as trustworthy; however, those first couple minutes are not a true indication of anything except that the question was a kind of attempt at a joke in which the moderators were mocking various claims made within the bitcoin community.  Maybe Gavin did not know that the question was coming, but it was clear that everyone knew it as a softball set of question.. to start out in kind of fun and to show Gavin that largely the moderators did not believe the outrageous claims against Gavin.

Anyone in the public eye in bitcoin realize that many unfair claims are thrown at persons in the public light, and so with those starting off questions they were largely empathizing with him.

I hear you about Gavin's kind of nervous laugh in the beginning and around those two questions, but since Gavin was not really being challenged, without knowing more, it would not be fitting to read too much into the initial nervous laughing in that short context.

Sure, you can assume whatever you like.

When asked a straight question, I expect a straight answer.

[BitUsher]

Wow. The explosion of puss, poison, and vitriol seems to suggest some kind of boil has been lanced.

Crassic has failed, what's next now on the maximally FUD bitcoin agenda I wonder?

We should assume these attacks will continue and get worse as bitcoin matures and private blockchains start getting promoted.
Whether an Agent provocateur is merely a troll, works for a competing coin, or the state, matters not. The importance in studying subversion tactics  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY  is critical because it will strengthen our community and allow us to deflect these attacks in the future. An attacker doesn't even have to be aware that they are subverting, they could merely be a troll will sadistic tendencies who naturally subverts for pleasure.... in either case or response and reaction should be the same.... so we need not waste effort identifying whether they are government agents or buttcoin trolls.

This doesn't mean we should ignore any criticisms of Bitcoin. We should welcome criticisms which are fact based regardless of how upsetting those facts can be or who they are coming from. We do not want to isolate ourselves with groupthink either. This makes individuals like Peter Todd very valuable to our ecosystem, because they don't mind pointing out the weaknesses within bitcoin(so we can fix them ) regardless of how many people they upset with the cold hard truths.

[Cconvert2G36]

Wow. The explosion of puss, poison, and vitriol seems to suggest some kind of boil has been lanced.

Crassic has failed, what's next now on the maximally FUD bitcoin agenda I wonder?

Crassic keeps failing like this means it should be at 1500 nodes next week?

Meanwhile, Core 0.12 is around 300 nodes? Why don't you guys upgrade? If not for 5x faster validation and "on by default" opt in RBF... at least to throw a little cold water on these Crassic trolls and agents.

[bargainbin]

... Whether an Agent provocateur is merely a troll, works for a competing coin, or the state, matters not. ...

@shmadz: YOU were the one who asked "When were you co-opted and why are you trying to destroy bitcoin?" Do you ask similar questions IRL, or just on the interwebs?

[WhatsBitcoin]

Wow. The explosion of puss, poison, and vitriol seems to suggest some kind of boil has been lanced.

Crassic has failed, what's next now on the maximally FUD bitcoin agenda I wonder?

We should assume these attacks will continue and get worse as bitcoin matures and private blockchains start getting promoted.
Whether an Agent provocateur is merely a troll, works for a competing coin, or the state, matters not. The importance in studying subversion tactics  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY  is critical because it will strengthen our community and allow us to deflect these attacks in the future. An attacker doesn't even have to be aware that they are subverting, they could merely be a troll will sadistic tendencies who naturally subverts for pleasure.... in either case or response and reaction should be the same.... so we need not waste effort identifying whether they are government agents or buttcoin trolls.

Some Bitcoiners actually prefer radical transparency to paranoid defensiveness. Think about it.

[JayJuanGee]

Have any of you actually listened to the Gavin interview?

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-282-bitcoin-classic-with-gavin-andresen

First question was about national security letter, which of course he could not answer, second question?

"When were you co-opted and why are you trying to destroy bitcoin?"

Answer: (after 10 seconds of maniacal laughter and umming and awing) a couple years ago, and yes, I've stopped beating my wife.  <- making the question seem ridiculous is a common tactic for answering a question that incriminates you without lying. Anyone who was not compromised would simply and indignantly say "I am not compromised and I'm not trying to destroy bitcoin." But he doesn't, he admits to being compromised and then tries to imply the question is ridiculous so that, by association, his answer will also be considered ridiculous.


By his own words, he is compromised. It should have been obvious the minute he started advocating for 8GB blocks, but some of you are still oblivious.

Just listen to it, it's in the first two minutes of the show.

I listened to the whole show, including the first couple of minutes as you described.

I also made a posting about Gavin.

Here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13896428#msg13896428


Ultimately I agree with your conclusion that Gavin his not coming off as trustworthy; however, those first couple minutes are not a true indication of anything except that the question was a kind of attempt at a joke in which the moderators were mocking various claims made within the bitcoin community.  Maybe Gavin did not know that the question was coming, but it was clear that everyone knew it as a softball set of question.. to start out in kind of fun and to show Gavin that largely the moderators did not believe the outrageous claims against Gavin.

Anyone in the public eye in bitcoin realize that many unfair claims are thrown at persons in the public light, and so with those starting off questions they were largely empathizing with him.

I hear you about Gavin's kind of nervous laugh in the beginning and around those two questions, but since Gavin was not really being challenged, without knowing more, it would not be fitting to read too much into the initial nervous laughing in that short context.

Sure, you can assume whatever you like.

When asked a straight question, I expect a straight answer.

Overall, I agree with you; however, as I stated you seem to reading too much into one answer or one set of answers.

Did you see my earlier post on the topic that I linked for ease of reference?

Surely, I agree that Gavin is really acting shady in a variety of ways, but still, I find it better to attempt to keep claims a bit more solid because you just give ammunition to the other side when you either exaggerate or you read too much into the wrong context, then even though ultimately you are correct, you are appearing to be a bit crazy because your example is not solid enough to prove the case and you are reading too much into one example.

Probably, I agree with you too, that he probably should not have played around with the joke, and just had given a straight answer for the record.... just to make an unambiguous denial (that is if he is really not compromised), but anyhow people make those kinds of slip-ups all of the time, and we gotta look at their conduct more broadly, rather than one or two instances.

[BitUsher]

Crassic keeps failing like this means it should be at 1500 nodes next week?

There is a sybil attack occuring as we speak , and the sad thing is that many Classic supporters that are participating in the sybil attack have good intentions and not aware that they are weakening the security of our network. This isn't a Core vs Classic disagreement , because Core devs criticised when an exchange spun up 100 Core nodes... and rightfully so.

The intentions of the person spinning up nodes is only is half the problem. If one person or company spins up many nodes that is indeed a sybil attack and weakens the security of our network regardless of their intentions. It centralizes nodes, gives a false signal to the network that its healthier and more decentralized than it actually is, an can be used as an attack vector if that individual is compromised(even if their intentions are well founded) . This has nothing to do with the implementation debate and everything to do with understanding the potential security implications of an individual spinning up more than one node. This should always be discouraged regardless of it being a core node, XT, node, Classic node, ect... 1 node per economic agent- whether it be a company, SPV wallet, individual, miner, ect.... 1 node each. There is no way of stopping someone creating more but this practice should be discouraged as it weakens bitcoin and is indeed a type of Sybil attack.

Some Bitcoiners actually prefer radical transparency to paranoid defensiveness. Think about it.

Those aren't mutually exclusive... in fact , transparency is one thing I'm advocating to deflect these types of attacks.

[JayJuanGee]

... Whether an Agent provocateur is merely a troll, works for a competing coin, or the state, matters not. ...

@shmadz: YOU were the one who asked "When were you co-opted and why are you trying to destroy bitcoin?" Do you ask similar questions IRL, or just on the interwebs?

He (Shmadz) was quoting the let's talk bitcoin show, dumb shit!

[blunderer]

Crassic keeps failing like this means it should be at 1500 nodes next week?

There is a sybil attack occuring as we speak , ... 1 node per economic agent- whether it be a company, SPV wallet, individual, miner, ect.... 1 node each. There is no way of stopping someone creating more but this practice should be discouraged as it weakens bitcoin and is indeed a type of Sybil attack.

How does one tell if the nodes are real or a sybil attack?

[blunderer]

... Whether an Agent provocateur is merely a troll, works for a competing coin, or the state, matters not. ...

@shmadz: YOU were the one who asked "When were you co-opted and why are you trying to destroy bitcoin?" Do you ask similar questions IRL, or just on the interwebs?

He was quoting the let's talk bitcoin show, dumb shit!

Was referring to this, my angry Friend

... When asked a straight question, I expect a straight answer.

[WhatsBitcoin]

Some Bitcoiners actually prefer radical transparency to paranoid defensiveness. Think about it.

Those aren't mutually exclusive... in fact , transparency is one thing I'm advocating to deflect these types of attacks.

I'd be interested to hear more about this when you have some time.

[Cconvert2G36]

Crassic keeps failing like this means it should be at 1500 nodes next week?

There is a sybil attack occuring as we speak , and the sad thing is that many Classic supporters that are participating in the sybil attack have good intentions and not aware that they are weakening the security of our network. This isn't a Core vs Classic disagreement , because Core devs criticised when an exchange spun up 100 Core nodes... and rightfully so.

The intentions of the person spinning up nodes is only is half the problem. If one person or company spins up many nodes that is indeed a sybil attack and weakens the security of our network regardless of their intentions. It centralizes nodes, gives a false signal to the network that its healthier and more decentralized than it actually is, an can be used as an attack vector if that individual is compromised(even if their intentions are well founded) . This has nothing to do with the implementation debate and everything to do with understanding the potential security implications of an individual spinning up more than one node. This should always be discouraged regardless of it being a core node, XT, node, Classic node, ect... 1 node per economic agent- whether it be a company, SPV wallet, individual, miner, ect.... 1 node each. There is no way of stopping someone creating more but this practice should be discouraged as it weakens bitcoin and is indeed a type of Sybil attack.

It's a good thing NMN (non-mining-nodes) have nothing to do with network security, talk about a wide open vulnerability...

Consequently, it's nice that the network's security isn't dependent on you "discouraging" people from running more than 1 node.  

[shmadz]

Did you see my earlier post on the topic that I linked for ease of reference?

No. I pretty much ignore anything you have to say.

It's unfortunate. I'm sure sometimes you say something worth reading, but I've done the calculations; the massive amount of meaningless text that you spew is simply not worth the time to read.

[Cconvert2G36]

Did you see my earlier post on the topic that I linked for ease of reference?

No. I pretty much ignore anything you have to say.

It's unfortunate. I'm sure sometimes you say something worth reading, but I've done the calculations; the massive amount of meaningless text that you spew is simply not worth the time to read.

Now here's an opportunity for some non-contentious consensus.