Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[iamnotback]

Exactly my thinking, posted similar though in another thread

Doesnt look like code made by institutes or scientists, or mathematician but from software industry like engineers

Nash mostly did coding for mathematica, and more looking like mathematician code with arrays matrixes and operations, with groups, subset, and math concept, mathematician tend to see programs as linear system, or group theory and program libs or scripts for mathematica, not portable c++ app with boost & openssl & qt.

no its just language.  Szabo did it.  Maybe finney.  A good idear wouldn't do the code himself.  Why would he?  He just hypothosized philosophy.

We are just inferior.  We think philosphy can't changt ethe worl or shpae the uni.

Sorry you are incorrect. You don't understand the very strong distinction between these disciplines. @IadixDev and @2112 have made a good point.

[traincarswreck]

Sorry you are incorrect. You don't understand the very strong distinction between these disciplines. @IadixDev and @2112 have made a good point.

no.  you can't code this without benevolent objectivity.  Nash laid the grounds socratically.  szabo said "if you want to change the world with code, you need to be socratic about it."

[traincarswreck]

You're writing absolute nonsense.

You don't even understand our field. We are expert programmers. Please don't tell us about what we know.

I was taught how to program by amazing programmers and teachers.

[traincarswreck]

Explain boost iterators and C++ lambda functions in detail immediately within the next 60 seconds.

See you are not an expert programmer. STFU.

I learned 4 languages at a time.  C++ was one.  So was cobalt. 24 hours access to the lab.  no excuses for late projects.  12 ish years ago.  test every week.  group project every week.  midterm looming.

Ya I was taught well.  Top gun course.

Who read Nash? Other than you. I had incredible teachers. 

[IadixDev]

Nash was saying/yelling the anti commies and the commies are on the same side colluding against the people.  Crazy at the time. but obviously logically true if you think about the value of money.

Orlov says this too  


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Orlov_(writer)

[IadixDev]

Explain boost iterators and C++ lambda functions in detail immediately within the next 60 seconds.

See you are not an expert programmer. STFU.

I learned 4 languages at a time.  C++ was one.  So was cobalt. 24 hours access to the lab.  no excuses for late projects.  12 ish years ago.  test every week.  group project every week.  midterm looming.

Ya I was taught well.  Top gun course.

Who read Nash? Other than you. I had incredible teachers.  

Learning c++ basics at school is a thing, making a portable app with boost/qt/openssl , multithread , database etc in reasonable time with enough security etc it's another thing

I think even at any rate a good mathematician noob in code wanting to do this would have used java. Some math nerds do java applets

But a crap like bitcore with c++, net, crypto, thread,qt etc need people who have experience building commercial software

[IadixDev]

Learning c++ basics at school is a thing, making a portable app with boost/qt/openssl , multithread , database etc in reasonable time with enough security etc it's another thing

my teacher said "you get an A, but nothing is right, I like the way you did this, interesting."

I'll see you after class.

after class:

I want you on our math team.

no chance I could answer any math team question correctly.

Me it was more the opposite with math teacher lmao you got the good result but i dont understand a shit, it's not like we taught and your writing sucks took me 1h to read it so you got F

Me after class ok, i will not come back to your exam :p

[IadixDev]

A good coder would modulate and out source.  Argue with that.

Depend the criteria, if criteria is time spent vs commercial benefits it's not the same than scientists or academics

[IadixDev]

A good coder would modulate and out source.  Argue with that.

Dépend the criteria, is criteria is time spent vs commercial benefits it's not the same than scientists or academics

I was taught it doesn't depend.

Did you ever worked in software industry when if you follow what they teach at school it need 2 month and you have one week to roll it up , and then send complaint to customer support ?

Bitcore it look like this sort of code

[IadixDev]

Did you ever worked in software industry when if you follow what they teach at school it need 2 month and you have one week to roll it up , and then send complaint to customer support ?

Bitcore it look like this sort of code

I had incredible teachers.  Taught me to learn a language in a weekend.

There is difference between learning a language and pulling out commercial app within deadlines

[iamnotback]

This thread is entirely derailed by @traincarswreck. I am locking it until the mod deletes his posts.

no lets keep dialogue going.

No, this is not a chat. You don't seem to understand forum discussion. You must prepare your posts very organized and very few in number, so the thread doesn't look like a chat that buries all the expert discussion.

No one liner post after post after post.

[iamnotback]

After feedback from others, further thought and investigation, I now think it is unlikely that the programmer of Bitcoin and the guy who interacted with community through mailing lists and this forum was the famed mathematician John Nash.

However, I think John Nash is still possibly involved unwittingly. It seems it was intentionally made to appear that John Nash could have been Satoshi (which thus of course means Satoshi isn't Nash).

However, it is very peculiar that Nash did not ever speak to the fact that Satoshi's PoW was discovery of a Shapley value for his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperative Repeated Games and that Bitcoin was the better (more stable) gold that his ideal money plan needed to force nations to compete to make their currencies more stable which is precisely what he predicted could happen by a process of evolution.

So it occurs to me to think that that which is not achieved by a grand action of establishment by “fiat” may alternatively tend to come into existence as a consequence of a process of evolution. And of course, after a certain degree of progress by “evolution” the rest of the progress could possibly be realized by a convention or a process of “fiat”.

And that Nash specifically demurred when asked about Bitcoin, but then cryptically explained that gold and silver were worse, thus implying that he knew that Bitcoin was what his ideal money planned needed to kickstart the evolution he wrote about. So that is very strange.

And I still have no explanation for the timing of Nash's absence from public activity from the late 2008 to early 2010 timeframe, which coincided with Satoshi's public communication.

Here is evidence that Nash wasn't the Satoshi speaking to us:

...

As I have been explaining since 2014, Bitcoin was created by the global elite who want a NWO. Bitcoin forces the national central banks to become compared to a stable money which has more utility than gold, i.e. a better gold. It kickstarts the process of destroying nation-state fiats. Which is what Nash's ideal money called for as a process of evolution.

The global elite understand the math I showed which shows that all the Bitcoin can become concentrated in one entity, if Bitcoin were to become the most stable global settlement (reserve) currency.

Thus the elite understand that Bitcoin will ultimately be rejected and thus their SDR basket (analogous to the IPCI in Nash's ideal money) will end up being the ultimate NWO reserve currency. Bitcoin may end up in that basket.

I think the elite somehow involved Nash by NSF funding his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperative Repeated Games and influencing him to continue he paranoid obsession with ideal money which was involved in his life long battle with delusional paranoia.

So somehow they were able to structure Nash's activities to make it plausible that he could have been Satoshi.

I think what the elite did was they seeded some secret group to do the coding and interaction as Satoshi. This was within the national security apparatus aka "DEEP STATE".

They surely killed those who did the original coding by now.

But I think they outsmarted themselves. Or the emergent chaos of nature outsmarted them. Because Bitcoin will give rise to altcoins which move beyond fungible money into the Inverse Commons of the knowledge age.

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/bitcoin-and-coffee/

Boom!

hm.... Even if he is or isn't Satoshi Nakamoto, I think that people should stop searching for him like he's a bigfoot or something. If the guy want's to remain anonymous, leave him be. :/

That's not the point. More interesting reading about ideal money and the relationship to bitcoin. I don't care about Satoshi. I do care about bitcoin and the ideas behind it.

Exactly. Trolls like @Dorky can't seem to grasp the intellectual pursuit. Because they have pea brains.

I doubt he has even bothered to read that very important source document you linked to.

It looks like you've unmasked the bitcoin santa claus and ruined christmas  

Any marketcap other than bitcoin's is a smoke and mirror illusion, any marketcap lower than $10B should not even be considered because some big investors could easily manipulate the entire ecosystem but not with marketcap above $10-$15B as the risks are too high for a few big whales.
So I wouldn't count on alts that much.

[iamnotback]

Note the mod has not cleaned up the thread, so it will remain locked to be prevent important information was getting buried in noise.

Antagonism, fraud, deception, division and greed is what keeps bitcoin honest. It is the cornerstone of trustless distributed systems.  What kills such system, is community, agreements (what some here erroneously call "consensus") and cooperation (also called collusion).  

A community spirit is perfectly possible in, say, open source development.

The bolded is very well summarized.

But open source has the same crab bucket properties as Satoshi's PoW. Those who can't conform to the inertia of the project, must fork and leave. It is nearly impossible for the consensus to form about radical changes in the original inertia of an open source project.

Nobody owns the Inverse Commons. It is quite different from fungible money, as I've been explaining.

Bitcoin was designed by a guy that thought he had to invent something to counter something else that he thought was badly designed, and in doing so, he made a lot of "mistakes" himself.

I have refuted you on this point.

Satoshi's PoW is working out exactly as planned. Bitcoin remains the settlement layer and scaling is moving to Litecoin with off chain private fractional reserve banking that will be Lightning Networks on Litecoin.

The game theory of Bitcoin is a crab bucket mentality Schelling point and nobody can change the protocol, they can only block changes to the protocol. Which is exactly what is happening.

Chinese cartel doesn't control Bitcoin, the protocol controls itself. The Chinese are protecting the protocol precisely as the game theory expects they would.

It is difficult for me to have a discussion with the idiots here in these forums. You guys don't assimilate everything I write.

Re: Snapchat first investor thinks bitcoin could realistically be worth $500,000

According to Jeremy Liew, the first investor in Snapchat, and Blockchain CEO and cofounder Peter Smith. In a presentation sent to Business Insider, the duo laid out their case for why it's reasonable for bitcoin to explode to $500,000 by 2030.

A very interesting article at Business Insider that worth reading: http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-could-be-500000-by-2030-first-snapchat-investor-says-2017-3

I originally thought BTC might top out below $50k.

But now that I understand that BTC will be exclusively only the settlement layer for the mass scaling which will take place in altcoins, I now think his analysis may be correct.

All the power broker settlement will likely to be on the Bitcoin blockchain which will be the bulk of the fungible capital generated by the masses on the altcoins as dictated by the power-law (Zipf's law) distribution of wealth. Thus Bitcoin is the reserve currency of all the altcoins.

This is why one must stay invested in this sector. Note I do think the altcoins that scale up the masses will see faster appreciation than BTC in spurts, so that is one of way of increasing one's BTC if you are expert at speculation. Otherwise buy and hodl BTC.

[iamnotback]

It is important for me to clear up the record on the following because I am preparing to blog on a ToE which ties in everything we've been discussing lately in this thread.  

Re: OT crap from Compact Confidential Transactions for Bitcoin

Edit2: Thanks for the move, totally appropriate.

Hitler Gregory had moved it from the original thread where it belonged in context, and he renamed the thread to this adhominen insult name, OT crap from Compact Confidential Transactions for Bitcoin.

What is so ironic is that I think I ended up later potentially solving the proof-of-square requirement (required by the flaw Andrew Poelstra aka andytoshi has discovered) for Compact Confidential Transactions (CCT) when I merged that homomorphic encryption with Cryptonote ring signatures prior to the similar attempt to merge Blockstream's less efficient CT with Cryptonote.

Andrew Poelstra and Gregory Maxwell don't need any defense by me, their records stand on their own, but I'm thinking pointing this out may be helpful to those that aren't familiar with your antics. I'll also point out that most people, especially GMaxwell have been overwhelmingly patient with you.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg5640949#msg5640949

Lol, you linked to where I had been the first one to point out to Gregory Maxwell, that CoinJoin can always be jammed with DoS because one can't blacklist the attacker because the entire point of CoinJoin is to provide mixing so that an attacker can obscure his UTXO history.

You are so careless that you didn't even realize that was my famous shaming of Gregory. Did you miss the post where I declared "checkmate" then Gregory responded with ad hominem and then by the force of my correct logic he had to STFU.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7872805#msg7872805

Lol, again you missed where at the end I showed the math derivation of how to defeat selfish-mining which was the basic idea behind published designs such as GHOST (which I wasn't aware at the time and only became aware of when I read Vitalik's blog).

You linked to a guy who is technologically ignorant and is currently a BU shill.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=679743.0

Yes Gregory did point an error in my conceptualization of Winternitz which I had only become aware of just hours or days before that, and I admitted it. I even went on to write Winternitz code and become quite expert on it, even incorporating Winternitz it into my anti-DDoS conceptualization.

But you failed to cite the other occasions where I put Gregory's foot in his mouth, such as my recent expose on how Bitmain checkmated Blockstream and in 2016 I pointed out that his flawed logic and math on why Ogg shouldn't have index (which was a format in which he was intimately involved as a co-designer of one of the key compression codes!):

And how is not having the index any worse than not allowing an index. I fail to see the logic. Seems you are arguing that the receiving end will expect indexes and not be prepared for the case where indexes are not present. But that is a bug in the receiving end's software then. And in that case, there is no assurance that software would have done the index-less seeking more efficiently for the status quo of not allowing an index. None of this makes sense to me.

Also I don't understand how you calculate 20% increase in file size for adding an index. For example, lets take an average 180 second song consuming roughly 5MB for VBR encoding. Let's assume my users are satisfied with seeking in 1 second increments, so that means means I need at most 180 of 22-bit indices, so that is only 495 bytes which is only a 0.01% increase! On top of that I could even compress those 22-bit indices into relative offsets if I want to shrink it by roughly 75% to 0.0025%.

Ah that reminds me why @stereotype keeps trolling my threads, again, and again and continuing to be habitually incorrect.

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis made a followup reply to an upthread discussion...


Readers I am not admonishing @dinofelis. I respect him very much. Please read all the way to the end of this post.

Satoshi's creation contains too many blunders (mathematical, cryptographic, economical, game-theoretical and programmatic) to be made by a genius like Nash.

I have refuted you in another thread. You had some really dumb errors in your analysis such as claiming that RIPE160 reducing security. No it only reduces the space of addresses increases potential collisions but only astronomically small probability yet saves a lot of scaling space.

Given that that thread is closed, I won't reply there of course.  But your rebuttal is wrong, most probably because you didn't see the point I was making.

Here is your rebuttal:

Sorry but you are incorrect. Math theoretic bitlength security is not comparable to hash function bitlength security. Also RIPE160 comes after SHA256, thus you lose no security, only collisions. The hash only obscures the public key. Still need to provide the public key on spending, so 160-bit collision won't help you spend because hashing also with SHA256.

There are different forms of attack on a bitcoin UTXO, some more theoretical than others, but here it goes.

In order to spend an UTXO in an attack, you have to provide a digital signature and a public key that allows to verify that signature, in such a way that:
1) that signature corresponds to the transaction as verified with the given public key
2) the hash of that public key corresponds to the given address.

Of course, 1) is not difficult by itself: just any key pair (P,S) will allow you to use S to generate a valid signature, that can be verified by P.  The hard part is 2), the fact that the public key has to hash to the given address.

Essentially, we need to find a P such that
1) P corresponds to an S that can generate a signature to be verified by P
2) P ultimately hashes to A, the address.

In this problem, A is the only given.  ANY P that hashes to A and that has a corresponding S, will do.

The cryptographic assumptions are that we have an easy elliptic function ell(S) = P, and an easy hash function hash(P) = A.  Note that the fact that hash() is a compound hash function of two standards, SHA-256 and RIPE160, doesn't matter in the theoretical description.

ell() is a 256 -> 256 bit function
hash is a 256 -> 160 bit function.

In the end, the only thing that we need, is to find an S, such that hash(ell(S)) = A.

As hash o ell = full is a 256 -> 160 bit function, to brute-force this, your security is essentially 160 bit.  After on average 2^160 trials, you will have found an S.

Correct the intractable brute force collision attack is reduced to 2^160 bits.

And that is you're mistake. Shocked?   I had thought of that of course and was waiting for you to make this mistake.

Here we aren't concerned about an intractable brute force attack. We are concerned about cryptanalysis breakage. And non-brute force, cryptanalysis collision attacks require attacking the input (and output relationship) of the RIPE160, not attacking the input of the SHA256 whose output in the input of the RIPE160. Such as for distinguishers, boomerang attacks, etc.

I have studied hash functions and their cryptanalysis some, so I became aware of this.

  It will not be the owner's S, but that doesn't matter.
This particular S will:
1) provide a P that will be able to verify the signature generated by S
2) have the P hash to A

and that's all that is needed.

In fact, 2^(256 - 160) = 2^96 different (S,P) key pairs will satisfy the needs to spend the transaction output.

Although you try to make that big number of potential duplicates sound like a big deal, it is in fact intractable to find one because of the 2^160 bits of collision space in the brute force attack case.

Only one of those is the true owner's key pair, but the whole point is that that doesn't matter.  The transaction can be satisfied by 2^96 different key pairs, because the only thing that is needed for such a key pair, is for its public key to be hashed to the address.

So the effective security of bitcoin's signature scheme, is 160 bit on the condition that all cryptography is perfectly safe.   There's no point in going to 256 bit for the key pair, because 96 bits of that are lost, given that 2^96 key pairs hash to the same address, and are interchangeable.

As I had originally pointed out you are conflating two entirely different systems of security and each can benefit orthogonally from increased bit lengths when we are not concerned about an intractable brute force enumeration attack and instead concerned with math theoretic cryptanalysis breakage.

Now, ONCE the public key is exposed (which is normally, if no address re-utilisation, only when the payment is broadcast), the security of a 256 public key scheme with full cryptographic security is 128 bits (all schemes are vulnerable to Pollard's rho attack which halves the number of bits).  As such, it seems at first sight that a 160 bit hash doesn't seem to decrease the security of the key pair, a 256 bit key is in any case not more secure than 128 bits.

That is why we need the 256 bitlength security for the ECDSA. That has been my point. Don't conflate hash function attacks with ECC attacks.

I'm even not sure that you really maintain the 128 bit security if 2^96 key pairs are possible, even though for most general attacks I know about, you need to know the explicit public key and not just a hash test of it.

You're thinking about it entirely incorrectly per my points above.

However, such security is not needed.  The public key only needs to be secure from the moment of broadcast until the moment of integration in the block chain, that is, about 10 minutes.  There is no need for 128 bit security in that case.

If you would have taken 80 bits of security, that is, an elliptic curve crypto system with 160 bit keys, then there would be only a single key pair that corresponds to the address. You wouldn't have wasted 96 bits for each input.  The long time security would still be 160 bits, because of the security of the (combined) hash function.  And 80 bits of security would be more than sufficient to keep the secret the time between broadcasting the signature and the key, and its inclusion in a block.

Incorrect. Think about it.

The error you (and probably Satoshi) make is to think that because at a certain point we have 256 bits, that this level of security is "locked in".

You presume we are simpletons, because you have made a Dunning-Kruger mistake.

This error comes from thinking that one has to crack the scheme "backward" one by one: first one has to crack RIPEM160, then one has to crack SHA-256, then one has to crack elliptic curve discrete logs on 256 bits.  But that is not necessary.  You can see the system as a whole, and you shouldn't see it as reversing several individual steps.   You can easily see the problem with that notion.   Suppose that passwords are protected with a 20-bit hash.

Please don't lecture me. I understand all that. But you got lost in the trees and didn't see the big picture point.

==> clumsy crypto.

Nope. Your analysis was clumsy.

Please stop thinking Satoshi made mistakes. He was more clever and exacting than you. You really want to believe the global elite didn't create Bitcoin. And you really want to believe Bitcoin is going to fail. But your beliefs do not align with objective reality.

I am not trying to insult or demean you. I know you are very smart and I have appreciated all your very high-quality analysis. As well you turned me more on to the concept that PoW is a crab mentality immutability game theory.

I am just noting that your confirmation biases for wanting Bitcoin to fail, are I think causing you to be overconfident and not skeptical enough on your analysis.

I am thoroughly convinced that iamnotback is a total moron.

You are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately.

Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."

@dinofelis will acknowledge the correctness of my rebuttal, unless he is disingenuous. And I don't think he is.

@dinofelis's mistake was thinking that something that is intractable is worth worrying about. Cryptanalysis attempts to reduce the intractable bitlength security to a tractable attack. But I explained the staging of the SHA256 before the input of the RIPE160, in theory makes cryptanalysis attacks on the collision equivalent to attacking the 256-bitlength collision security of SHA256. Cryptanalysis attacks don't collapse to 160-bits. I possess more knowledge about hash function security than @dinofelis.

[iamnotback]

Hello Iamnotback,
Just wanted to take the opportunity to tell you (well maybe you don't care, but that's fine), that I was pretty impressed by your recent post about BTC being a tool for the Elite/Globalist, or better said their invention. I think you hit the nail on the head. Having a look at world politics (and particularly in Europe) the development into a "cash free" society is in full swing. Even if most people still laugh about it, I do believe it will become reality. Right now it pretty much seems that bank (and theirs owners) try hard to push people into alternative investments, like gold or bitcoin.

The Elite/Globalist being involved also explains (at least to me) why most governments are pro bitcoin and anti centralization. This is quite paradox. Why would they want to support something they know taxation (at least in many regions) is difficult? It doesn't add up.

That being said, 2 theories can be added:
1. BTC (similiar to the recent CIA leaks) is a creation of them, however they lost control. (Good for us on longterm)
2. BTC really is their "endgame" at least on financial level. This would be beneficial for us in short to midterm, but needless to say that the longterm will be pretty messed up.

They haven't lost control. Bitcoin is becoming ever more centralized and it will remain a settlement layer for power broker finance and the rest of n00bs will forced off chain (Litecoin or whatever) or through exchanges (because the transaction fees will become too great for us to transaction on chain in Bitcoin). So once they've forced us off chain, then all of us have to KYC, while they will be free to do anonymous transactions on chain.

The long-term looks very bleak, unless my Knowledge Age and non-fungible trading in Inverse Commons is correct. And I think it is.

Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I enjoy reading most of your posts. Even the troll one amuse me. Well maybe all of your posts are trolls and I just don't get it. It's a possibility.

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.

So in the future every troll post will be deleted that I would have otherwise felt I need to admonish with a caustic rebuttal.

[iamnotback]

This isn't to promote embarrassment or admonishment of @dinofelis. No I just want to spread the information (perspective) contained within my rebuttal.

But I consider that as a design error.  Visibly he didn't realize the amount of wasted power that would go into his system.

Everything in Bitcoin was calculated for a reason.

Remember Bitcoin is made by the elite for the elite.

And I had already refuted your excessive hashrate cost argument in another thread. You are quite disingenuous because you continue to claim issues that had already been refuted.

You disingenuously continue to pretend they weren't disproved.

So frankly we are reaching the point where we can't continue to have any dialogue because I don't waste my time with people who are disingenuous.

Ask yourself whose world view is hurt most:
- mine if ever it turned out that Nash was Satoshi (making me conclude that Nash's genius was probably having a bad day - can happen, given bitcoin's clunky design)
- yours if ever it turned out that Satoshi was just a guy in his basement

I am not the one suffering from cognitive dissonance

You continue to repeat that lie (opinion) about Bitcoin having clunky design. Bitcoin has a perfect design for what the elite want.

You will suffer the most because you are not preparing for the fact that Bitcoin is a 666 tool of the elite. And you are not preparing for the fact that the EU totalitarianism where you are will get horrifically worse. You think the crisis is over in Europe. Lol.

For me it doesn't matter who coded Bitcoin, but rather whose design principles Bitcoin was modeled on. And what is the outcome of Bitcoin going to be and its impact on the world.

You think Bitcoin is a silly toy that will fade away. I think Bitcoin will become a key part of the new financial system after the global monetary reset coming in the horrific sovereign debt totalitarianism collapse underway.

I'm sorry about that.

Why are you sorry? I hate Bitcoin too (long-term, its okay for my uses short-term). But I know Bitcoin is unstoppable although I wish it could be stopped.

I can write a letter to Pythagoras, saying "you are wrong, but you are suffering from cognitive dissonance".  That doesn't disprove Pythagoras' theorem.

You were disproven. You might be blind or disingenuous and unwilling to figure it out, but that is not my responsibility to fix.

95% or more of its market cap sustained by greater fool theory, and probably less than 5% used as money in one way or another

So is the entire fiat system. Have you not seen the $quadrillion in global derivatives holding up the fiat system.

You don't understand what money is. Finance is primary user of money, not the masses.

Bitcoin is the high powered reserve currency money of decentralized finance for $billionaires. You have no clue as to what is really going on. You are totally lost.

it is a great reserve currency for unregulated sleazy big business (but not for the normal user, only for the big sleazy guys).

Which is 95% of all business.

You don't seem to grasp that Bitcoin is how the banksters-gangsters will carry forward their wealth from the collapsing nation-state monetary system to the new one coming after 2024.

This is why I don't like it.  I think Satoshi created a monster

I don't like it either, but neither of us can stop it. You are highly underestimating the evil rise of Bitcoin.

In other words, when I see the work, I think it cannot be the work of a genius, or at most of a genius in a bad day.

Consider the genius is evil. Then you realize Bitcoin could have been designed by an evil genius. The reason you think it is not designed by  genius, because you don't understand the real goal of Bitcoin. Thus you misattribute clumsiness where the truth is it was cleverly designed that way to serve an evil purpose.

[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.

@iamnotback: Do you have any thoughts on how to solve that dilemma?

From my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.

However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.

The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.

And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.

Re: Speculation Rule: sell when others are irrationally optimistic or too exuberant

and it will never be forgotten when you are actually "right" as it won't be forgotten when you are actually "wrong"

Actually the opposite is true, because people always blame their mistakes on someone else. So I get no credit for the numerous times I've been correct, and people invent mirages in their mind of how I was wrong, when it was really their own mistake.

I've found that I can be the first to make a very important correct statement, then it spreads around the forum and suddenly everybody thinks it was their idea and nobody knows who was the original seed.

This is why fungible money can be a useful information tool, because it measures phenomenons that humans can't accurately appraise (measure). He who has the most money was the one who was correct more than anyone else. Bullshit walks, money talks.

Note however that fungible money has some serious drawbacks, such as that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

Yes some rating system or just + or - it like youtube. Would be fun

Not fun for those who aren't idiots. It would be a clusterfuck power vacuum of ignorance and politics, just like democracy. As if this forum needs more of that.  

Satoshi clearly stated that he intended to have VISA-like transaction volumes on-chain with bitcoin, but that bitcoin would become a semi-centralized served thing.

He lied by not mentioning that isn't his intended use case. He was just responding to a question about if Bitcoin could scale from a bandwidth consideration alone. You can find other cases where he lied by not pointing out how impractical something would be, such as how he claimed some nodes would still be willing to process a transaction for free:

When that runs out, the system can support transaction fees if
needed.  It's based on open market competition, and there will
probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free.

Duplicity is exactly what you'd expect from secret agents working for the global elite.

I read from Satoshi also that he realized that his system would only be viable in the long term in the hands of an oligarchy of miners.

So why can't you add 2+2?

He knows it will become centralized yet some how he thinks hobbyist nodes will still process for free. Satoshi was a liar.

Btw, John Nash was a prankster and deviant.

I was listening to him in an interview and he said he isn't concerned about helping the poor, because he said they are adjusted to their poverty.

So much for the P2P nature of bitcoin, which was only intended as a bootstrap with useful idiots.  He clearly didn't care about a long-term P2P network, and the importance of decentralized nodes:

Now you are starting to understand.

So why can't you add 2+2?

The block chain was just the ledger that a few oligarchs would share amongst them, hopefully keeping one another in check, to serve as the new centralized VISA backbone to which all users would connect.

However, the way bitcoin is evolving, and was actually designed with the 1 MB limit (and other practical limits), is that on chain transactions will be limited to a few big actors and will not reach large scale, but on the other hand, that most people will be able to download a chain with which they cannot do anything apart from contemplating how big guys are filling it with their expensive transactions.

Bitcoin is "rich sleasy business" OWN private money, NOT to be used by normal people, contrary to what Satoshi initially announced.   Bitcoin IS downloadable by anybody, but not usable ; Satoshi announced bitcoin to be usable by anybody, but not downloadable except for a few miner oligarchs.

And why did it become a rich sleazy business money and not a VISA administered by a few miners ?  Because Satoshi put himself a 1MB limit on the block chain.  If he understood the game structure of bitcoin, he would have known that this limit would become immutable because it was needed to generate fees (which he needed for reasons of his diminishing coin creation scheme in the longer term) but then it couldn't turn into a VISA kind of money and he would deny what he had been proposing from the start  - and if he didn't understand the consequences of him introducing a "temporary" 1 MB limit, then he couldn't foresee that it was going to become a rich-business-only crypto either.

Yup. So why can't you admit the evil genius of Satoshi?


Btw, I think it was necessary to murder John Nash before the blockchain scaling debate reached its boiling point. Because by now even people such as yourself are starting to realize something smells funny.

I understand @dinofelis wasn't able to assimilate this information, so I think by putting it all organized concisely in one post will help him and readers to understand. And hopefully he will stop lying.

One last time, I will repeat the rebuttals I made to two of @dinofelis' incorrect claims that Bitcoin has a clunky design thus implying Satoshi's design was not genius. I made other rebuttals upthread, but I will not repeat all of them again.

1.

there's no point in making the hash bigger than 128 bits @dinofelis claims that since it is known that the true security of Bitcoins 256-bit ECDSA (elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, i.e. a form of ECC aka elliptic curve cryptography) is only 128-bits, then if we hash the ECDSA public key, then we only need a 128-bit hash. Thus he claims that Satoshi was wasteful and not genius. Although Satoshi's long-term priorities were not prioritized on not consuming too much block size given 1 MB was deemed more than sufficient for Bitcoin's planned future as block chain for the $billionaires only, Satoshi did minimize the length of the hash function by choosing 160-bit RIPE160 instead of SHA256 for the final hash of Bitcoin addresses (as they appear on the blockchain, but note that publicly distributed addresses also have a checksum for eliminating user typos but afaik this checksum is or could be discarded from what is stored on the blockchain). He did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient. Agreed it is but collision attacks based on distinguishers, boomerang attacks, and other forms of cryptoanalysis which attempt to reduce the intractability are what concern us. ... You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. By frustrating crypt-analysis with the prehashing with SHA256, this RIPE160 is deemed to be a perfect balance of compression and brute force collision resistance. Yet @dinofelis is incorrect to claim that 128-bits would have been sufficient for the hash function, because of at least two reasons: a) Reducing 160-bits by 16 bits only saves 10%, and for that miniscule size reduction you are not factoring the exponential loss in randomized collision resistance. Insufficient collision resistance of 128-bits. Even if we assume that all attacks on collision resistance of SHA128 are intractable, even the equation for random chance says that if we generation more than a trillion addresses then we have a near certainty of production one random collision. But that is for an idealized hash function. Whereas in fact hash functions always have more collisions than the perfect randomization of their bit length. Conservatively we would presume on the order of a few bits of redundancy in the permutation engine of the hash function, thus we would expect a random collision with only billions of address. Satohi was prescient in his prudence because since Bitcoin's launch in 2009, a collision attack against SHA128 has been discovered which reduces the collision security to 60-bits which is approaching the realm of tractability. Additionally since the attacker can control the message being signed, birthday attacks generally can reduce collisions to half the bit-length of the hash, which is different from using the birthday problem to attack the ECDSA. b) The hash is intended for long-term security (as it is public for a long time whereas the ECDSA signature and public key is only published for a short-time before it becomes recorded as final and not double-spendable in the blockchain), so it requires greater security. Notwithstanding the long-term security distinction, if the security of both the ECDSA and the hash are the same then cryptanalysis reduction of security in both might be levered in such a way that their weakening is compounded. Also the larger bit length of the hash may also provide competitive economic security compared with the block reward of using the SHA256 resources to mine the blockchain. And as I had pointed out upthread, the 160-bit reduces the collision attack space of the 256-bit ECDSA from 128 to  96 bits.

2.

@dinofelis claims that quantum computing resistance with the hash is futile because if the ECDSA is broken via Shor's algorithm, because he claims the attacker can crack the transaction signature and double-spend it when it is published before the bonafide signature becomes final in the blockchain. I already refuted this argument based on two reasons. If you argue that it doesn't matter if we have the hashes when ECC is broken by quantum computing, because the transactions can be intercepted and cracked by the attacker before they are confirmed in the network, you would not be thinking clearly. Because quantum computing would at its inception (nascent stages) likely be only able to break long-term security but not short-term. So there would be a period to transition as I already stated in the above quote from my prior post. So the day that one finds the "Euclidean division" in an ECC, it is COMPLETELY BROKEN. You are describing future cryptanalysis breakage of the math theoretic security of the intractability of the discrete logarithm over certain fields. But you're analogy does not apply, because Shor's algorithm (a form of cryptanalysis) is already known! It is not a future unknown. Also (and this is a minor point which isn't really necessary for my slamdunk) you are conflating the breakage of discrete logarithm math theoretic security with the security of permutation algorithms of hash functions. I repeat the distinction between the two which you have failed to assimilate: You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. As I had originally pointed out you are conflating two entirely different systems of security and each can benefit orthogonally from increased bit lengths when we are not concerned about an intractable brute force enumeration attack and instead concerned with math theoretic cryptanalysis breakage. Thus... --> if we assume that ECC will be broken one day, bitcoin's crypto scheme is IN ANY CASE not usable. Not only are you failing to assimilate the fact that Shor's breakage is already known (not a future thing not knowable as you are arguing) which is sufficient slamdunk on why you are incorrect, but you are also claiming that hash functions can typically be entirely broken in one swoop which afaik not the case (and I studied the cryptanalysis history on past SHA submissions from round 1 to final rounds). Now, what is the reason we can allow LOWER security for the exposed public key, than for the long-term address in an output ?  The reason is a priori (and I also fell into that trap - as I told you before, my reason for these discussions is only to improve my proper understanding and here it helped) that the public key needs only to secure the thing between broadcasting and inclusion in the chain.  But as you point out, that can take longer if blocks are full than 10 minutes.  This can be a matter of hours. Now, if we are on a security requirement of days or weeks, then there's essentially not much difference between days or weeks, and centuries.  The factor between them is 10000 or so.  That's 16 bits.  A scheme that is secure for days or weeks, only needs 16 bits of extra security, to be secure for centuries ====>  there is no reason to nitpick on 16 bits if we are talking about 128 bits or so. There is no reason to introduce "short term security" if this is only 16 bits less than the long term security level. You have incorrect conceptualization. The point of long-term security is not the difference in the time it takes to crack with a given level of technology, but rather that over the long-term we can't know when that moment comes that cracking has become sufficiently fast enough. The Bitcoin UTXO from 8 years ago that Satoshi has not spent, could have been under attack for the past 8 years. By having the hash for the long-term security, then we force all attacks to begin only when the UTXO are spent. This enables us to restrict damage to a very few number of transactions and the community will become alarmed and take corrective action. 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/ ... 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. You're advocating reducing to 80 bits, so that means in the future if someone has to computational capacity to break 128-bits in 2.814749767×10¹⁴ / 60*24*365.25 years, then then at your suggested 80 bits they could break it in 1 minute.

[iamnotback]

How can they find out I own bitcoin?

You have no secrets from the national security agencies. I don't care how many mixers you use, you have no secrets from them. Find old discussions between @smooth and myself on that topic.

Why doesn't MP dump too? he is a public figure so he will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation.

He is already one of the $billionaires (will probably be $trillionaire by 2030). He is a member of their shadow elite's club named The Most Serene Republic.

Do you need the evidence. MP alerted the TMSR which controls Wikileaks and this is why Wikileaks destroyed Hillary's campaign. Do some research on the connection between Rothschild and Julian Assange. Btw, Julian was a cyberpunk (the mailing list discussions) before he launched Wikileaks of which so were other players such as Hal Finney and James A. Donald (see my quotes of him in the Dark Enlightenment thread and note he was first person to respond to Satoshi on the metzdown mailing list whet Bitcoin was announced Nov. 1, 2008).

It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

They don't need to trap you. You'll get caught in their regulations because you will get kicked off the blockchain by the exorbitant transaction fees due to the constrained block size.

Also they can create war and other problems for us that cause us to need to spend our BTC sooner than we anticipated.

If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

You'll be forced to cash out of BTC before that (to some regulated financial system such as Lightning Networks, SEPA, etc) or hold your BTC a regulated exchange.

Or possibly there will be another blockchain choice such as yours truly. Ethereum is also attempting to scale the blockchain. I will make a post comparing Ethereum's technology to mine in Altcoin Discussion soon...

if your basing it on moving 1btc... the answer is naturally when it becomes costly to the point of over 1% (so 0.01btc fee) to move it people will lose preferential desire to hold bitcoin.

I disagree. People will see an incentive to hold bitcoin as long as the price keeps going to the moon. If the fee is 0.01 BTC, but the price of 1 BTC is $10,000 with prospects of going $100,000 BTC, then who is the idiot that doesn't want to hold that?

As long as the price keeps going up and the fees allow you to move your wealth when needed, it will have an incentive to be the holder's coin.

If the fee becomes higher than 99% of people's wealth and only billionaires see a point in using it, well that's a problem, everyone else will have dumped and only a few will be using it (and I don't see how it can survive in this state, since barely any transaction volume would be going on for miners to be worth mining)

You have an incomplete mathematical conceptualization.

You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.

It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.

So let me get this straight.

Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)

Well we can estimate given that BTC trades 1/100th of its market cap daily. So @ $500k per BTC thus a $10 trillion market cap, thus $100 billion transacted daily. Given 144 blocks per day, that is $600 million per block.

Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.

You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.

So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.

No one wants a bitcoin network where they'll have to pay more than 1% of the transaction amount as a fee

The whales do because they will be paying 0% fees, as I explained in my prior post.

And everyone who can afford it, will still want to hodl BTC, because the price is going to the moon.

So it will be a process that as the price rises, more and more riff-raff get priced out of the block chain. But those who remain will hodl because the price is rising logistically.

Really you need to think this out. It works very well economically and Satoshi was an evil genius.

Satoshi did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient.

Satoshi was so genius that he designed the AsicBoost into the design.

I can say that with great confidence because double-hashing defeats attacks such as AsicBoost, and Satoshi did double-hashing as a precaution every where it could be required in his design except for the proof-of-work.

He managed to think far ahead on the game theory and realized he would need a poison pill to ensure that no one could modify his evil design.

So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).

@dinofelis STFU on your nonsense about Satoshi wasn't genius. I've strongly refuted all of your nonsense technical claims. Stop your lying nonsense.

[iamnotback]

You could just remove the reward, any one can mine new block out of the mem pool, if two blocks or tx are in common, a determinstic algorithm could be used to select between the two.

I agree with you.  The error in most crypto is the reward, which gives rise to strategies that do not necessarily induce the desired properties.  I also think that the only viable kind of crypto currency is where the validation/consensus decision is taken on a voluntary basis, the "reward" being that the system in which you are invested, keeps running correctly.

However, you still need a kind of deterministic decision *that is hard to game* (because you can do "proof of work" like calculations to get the deterministic solution in your advantage).  This is why a kind of PoS signature scheme is necessary in my opinion.

@dinofelis, how many times do I have to repeat to you that voting is not free.

Ethereum's Casper shit is more of the same proof-of-stake (nothing-at-stake or centralization by economic weight, e.g. DPoS) nonsense. The betting stuff enables what Vitalik refers to as "dark uncles" or "dunkles", which Vitalik incorrectly thinks will solve the nothing-at-stake problem. Also Casper has the problem that all deterministic finality PoS and Byzatine agreement systems have, which is a 33% liveness threshold which if that many validators balk or stop processing, then the chain can't move forward without a hard fork.

The only way to replace PoW is with an Inverse Commons consensus protocol, which is my new invention.