Cobra-bitcoin compromised. Bitcoin.org is not safe bitcoin site anymore

[chek2fire]

And a reminder to anyone what this person says when his account was "hacked"

https://archive.fo/mrXQY



the sad is that this guy not even respect the thousand of hours that volunteers contribute to this site. He must step down from bitcoin.org asap.

[Wind_FURY]

I am torn in this issue. He did make sense about the POW change to prevent the mining cartel to rule over Bitcoin. I believe Luke Dashjr also expressed the same view.

https://medium.com/@CobraBitcoin/an-open-letter-to-the-bitcoin-community-to-change-the-proof-of-work-algorithm-12a6545c20d0

n a decentralized system, we shouldn’t be put into a position where we rely on a centralized point of failure to behave themselves. People talk about “new entrants” to the mining scene, but it’s almost impossible for anyone to catch up to the total domination of the mining space by BITMAIN. They are light years ahead. That $4 billion dollars of profit will be used to build even better hardware, allowing them to further dominate mining for the foreseeable future and likely buy stakes in their competitors.

The hashrate has already been abused to give political support to reckless and dangerous hard fork attempts. They have questionable allegiance to Bitcoin at best, seeming more interested in supporting Bitcoin Cash, undermining the very network that employs them. Even more dangerously, they are based in China, a country with a long track of human rights abuses, censorship, and generally evil behaviour. The miners are in a position where the Chinese government can take over their equipment at any time; something they will no doubt do if Bitcoin grows enough to allow them to use their control of the hashrate to push a Chinese geopolitical agenda.

But going as far as calling Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin, which is controlled by Jihan Wu and friends is very contradictory. Maybe he should propose to a POW change there as well. Hahaha.

But seriously, what changed? There has to be something happening behind all of this. Blackmail perhaps?

[hv_]

bitmain wants to make bitcoin cash more wide and popular among people than bitcoin.

the only time you should worry about bitcoin cash getting more wide spread, is not about twitter accounts or website links.. but when real world merchants stop accepting bitcoin and choose a different crypto.

And exactly this is happening.

SW + LN + < 1MB  is too complex and too expensive to get  any new merchants on board - this was pretty much clear front up.

This looks so much Netscape + Altavista + Kodak, too much name calling and too much central egos....

[hv_]

https://blockchain.info/address/1Cobra3fJstD9g3DJ2oaUpDps5gJsZa4eS

LoL


send him some dust and try to get him back on track 

[Wind_FURY]

bitmain wants to make bitcoin cash more wide and popular among people than bitcoin.

the only time you should worry about bitcoin cash getting more wide spread, is not about twitter accounts or website links.. but when real world merchants stop accepting bitcoin and choose a different crypto.

And exactly this is happening.

SW + LN + < 1MB  is too complex and too expensive to get  any new merchants on board - this was pretty much clear front up.

This looks so much Netscape + Altavista + Kodak, too much name calling and too much central egos....

The Lightning Network is not being marketed as a solution for merchants yet, while Segwit is now fully impelemented starting in version 0.16.0. Please explain to me how Segwit is "expensive and too complex for any new merchants".

[hv_]

bitmain wants to make bitcoin cash more wide and popular among people than bitcoin.

the only time you should worry about bitcoin cash getting more wide spread, is not about twitter accounts or website links.. but when real world merchants stop accepting bitcoin and choose a different crypto.

And exactly this is happening.

SW + LN + < 1MB  is too complex and too expensive to get  any new merchants on board - this was pretty much clear front up.

This looks so much Netscape + Altavista + Kodak, too much name calling and too much central egos....

The Lightning Network is not being marketed as a solution for merchants yet, while Segwit is now fully impelemented starting in version 0.16.0. Please explain to me how Segwit is "expensive and too complex for any new merchants".

SW is a very big code base change and this even to the base protocol level, injected into a about 8 year old very experimental and totally new, mostly unproven and incomprehended complex open tech env.

What would you expect, if you as a major or medium sized business are going to consult to professional risk managers (EY, Deloitte, PWC, ... Moodys, Standard & Poors, Fitch,.. insurance companies,... you name it) to let them figure out about whether it is more risky to choose for a robust, sustainable  impl for years (consider maintenance, road map, gov shit,..) between

 the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

[DooMAD]

SW is a very big code base change and this even to the base protocol level, injected into a about 8 year old very experimental and totally new, mostly unproven and incomprehended complex open tech env.

What would you expect, if you as a major or medium sized business are going to consult to professional risk managers (EY, Deloitte, PWC, ... Moodys, Standard & Poors, Fitch,.. insurance companies,... you name it) to let them figure out about whether it is more risky to choose for a robust, sustainable  impl for years (consider maintenance, road map, gov shit,..) between

 the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

At the risk of this turning into a BTC vs BCH vs ETH thread and which one is supposedly best, how about we just say that all are free to compete on the open market because that's how it was designed.  Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and none of them are perfect.  So rather than trying to preempt the market, it's probably best just to wait for it to decide for itself.  And, coming back to the topic at hand, whichever one you personally happen to like best doesn't preclude you from having dealings in any of the others, or owning any particular domain names.

Everyone is free to own what they own.  No one gets to take it away from them based on nothing more than an increasing petty and childish difference of opinion.  It's depressing that some people are incapable of moving past this puerile squabble.

Ultimately, the issue here isn't "who can be trusted to own a domain name?".  The issue is both "how do we, as mature and rational adults, not allow it to bother us when people in positions of influence hold differing views?" and "what if we stop putting them in positions of influence to begin with by not continuing to give them a wider audience than they otherwise deserve?".

It really doesn't have to be a big drama unless we choose to make it one.

[Wind_FURY]

bitmain wants to make bitcoin cash more wide and popular among people than bitcoin.

the only time you should worry about bitcoin cash getting more wide spread, is not about twitter accounts or website links.. but when real world merchants stop accepting bitcoin and choose a different crypto.

And exactly this is happening.

SW + LN + < 1MB  is too complex and too expensive to get  any new merchants on board - this was pretty much clear front up.

This looks so much Netscape + Altavista + Kodak, too much name calling and too much central egos....

The Lightning Network is not being marketed as a solution for merchants yet, while Segwit is now fully impelemented starting in version 0.16.0. Please explain to me how Segwit is "expensive and too complex for any new merchants".

SW is a very big code base change and this even to the base protocol level, injected into a about 8 year old very experimental and totally new, mostly unproven and incomprehended complex open tech env.

What would you expect, if you as a major or medium sized business are going to consult to professional risk managers (EY, Deloitte, PWC, ... Moodys, Standard & Poors, Fitch,.. insurance companies,... you name it) to let them figure out about whether it is more risky to choose for a robust, sustainable  impl for years (consider maintenance, road map, gov shit,..) between

 the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

If you really are going to consult with "professional risk managers" like those you mentioned, I believe using anything deeply technical to asses risk would go over all of their heads.

Instead, I want to ask you who the most qualified and the smartest people are in Bitcoin land and what, do you believe, will they say about Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum?

[hv_]

bitmain wants to make bitcoin cash more wide and popular among people than bitcoin.

the only time you should worry about bitcoin cash getting more wide spread, is not about twitter accounts or website links.. but when real world merchants stop accepting bitcoin and choose a different crypto.

And exactly this is happening.

SW + LN + < 1MB  is too complex and too expensive to get  any new merchants on board - this was pretty much clear front up.

This looks so much Netscape + Altavista + Kodak, too much name calling and too much central egos....

The Lightning Network is not being marketed as a solution for merchants yet, while Segwit is now fully impelemented starting in version 0.16.0. Please explain to me how Segwit is "expensive and too complex for any new merchants".

SW is a very big code base change and this even to the base protocol level, injected into a about 8 year old very experimental and totally new, mostly unproven and incomprehended complex open tech env.

What would you expect, if you as a major or medium sized business are going to consult to professional risk managers (EY, Deloitte, PWC, ... Moodys, Standard & Poors, Fitch,.. insurance companies,... you name it) to let them figure out about whether it is more risky to choose for a robust, sustainable  impl for years (consider maintenance, road map, gov shit,..) between

 the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

If you really are going to consult with "professional risk managers" like those you mentioned, I believe using anything deeply technical to asses risk would go over all of their heads.

Well - no.

Look e.g. into Switzerland where lots of such companies / universities / FINMA are already up to date and also hire ppl for exclusively such tasks. Also some banks like Falcon, Frick, Swissquote, Vontoble  are full running business here- be assured they have gone through many of such processes here.

Look out of your box - bitcoin & co has reached much more brains you might see and ever are aware of.

Proper risk management is base task in fin industry - many things are turned out into very clear numbers and math.


Single ppl , as you might want to hear , have no exclusive say any more if it comes to this rigorous quant analysis.


Code / Protocol analysis for beginners:

Compare Line-Count (simplest measure for code complexity)  - to - feature / capacity achieved

High code complexity is mostly bad as every junior coder knows.
(If there is simpler code out doing exactly the same or better than the more complex one, what code would you start with?)

Help:  Google for

it risk manager "blockchain"
 

[Wind_FURY]

I am still skeptical what people outside of Bitcoin really think about it. How do we know that they have an idea about cryptocurrencies in general?

Let this be a good example showing that they don't, http://moonnocoin.com/weissratings-sokuhou/Weiss-Cryptocurrency-Ratings.pdf

Plus most of them HATE Bitcoin and what it stands for because it threatens the domain of their masters.

[Pursuer]

the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

you are just attacking SegWit and all that comes with it while hiding all the flaws in the other two which you mentioned here! which makes you comments here very biased and without any value.

lets see.
nothing about BCH is tested, the "8 y test" is the 1 MB blocks test not the 8 MB so that is the same. the flaws that will cause is that it makes running full nodes harder and harder by individuals in the long run if blocks become full not like so far with empty 100-200 kB blocks! and that leads to more centralization and eventually there can only be centralized master full nodes run by government agents instead of individuals all around the world and that kills bitcoin.

ETH is even worse! you can no longer start a full node, the sync is impossible at this point because how slow and HUGE the blockchain of it is. a simple surge of transactions can cripple the whole ETH network which will cripple not only ETH but also all the tokens that are based on it!
and worst but not last is the fact that ETH is centralized and ever since their roll back they proved it is not immutable either.

[hv_]

the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

you are just attacking SegWit and all that comes with it while hiding all the flaws in the other two which you mentioned here! which makes you comments here very biased and without any value.

lets see.
nothing about BCH is tested, the "8 y test" is the 1 MB blocks test not the 8 MB so that is the same. the flaws that will cause is that it makes running full nodes harder and harder by individuals in the long run if blocks become full not like so far with empty 100-200 kB blocks! and that leads to more centralization and eventually there can only be centralized master full nodes run by government agents instead of individuals all around the world and that kills bitcoin.

ETH is even worse! you can no longer start a full node, the sync is impossible at this point because how slow and HUGE the blockchain of it is. a simple surge of transactions can cripple the whole ETH network which will cripple not only ETH but also all the tokens that are based on it!
and worst but not last is the fact that ETH is centralized and ever since their roll back they proved it is not immutable either.

My 'bias' is just 'against' complexity here.

And technically, a no-SW Bitcoin Blockchain is tested for good over 8 years now.

BCH is practically running < 1MB atm so what is your point?   Sure - if big corps & masses decide this is less risky - so we are happy to see more here - that's how it works in growth phases - enough nodes will come with new players.

The 'everybody needs to run a full node' narrative just does not hold any more - we just need 'enough' - PoW and it's inherent external risks are pretty good aligned with decentralization pressure.

[gentlemand]

I am still skeptical what people outside of Bitcoin really think about it. How do we know that they have an idea about cryptocurrencies in general?

Let this be a good example showing that they don't, http://moonnocoin.com/weissratings-sokuhou/Weiss-Cryptocurrency-Ratings.pdf

Plus most of them HATE Bitcoin and what it stands for because it threatens the domain of their masters.

I think in that particular case they appear to know, or rather care, less than the average person in a coma about crypto. That was purely an attempt to milk subscriptions out of people.

They rated a coin that doesn't exist yet above hundreds that do.

[Wind_FURY]

the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

you are just attacking SegWit and all that comes with it while hiding all the flaws in the other two which you mentioned here! which makes you comments here very biased and without any value.

lets see.
nothing about BCH is tested, the "8 y test" is the 1 MB blocks test not the 8 MB so that is the same. the flaws that will cause is that it makes running full nodes harder and harder by individuals in the long run if blocks become full not like so far with empty 100-200 kB blocks! and that leads to more centralization and eventually there can only be centralized master full nodes run by government agents instead of individuals all around the world and that kills bitcoin.

ETH is even worse! you can no longer start a full node, the sync is impossible at this point because how slow and HUGE the blockchain of it is. a simple surge of transactions can cripple the whole ETH network which will cripple not only ETH but also all the tokens that are based on it!
and worst but not last is the fact that ETH is centralized and ever since their roll back they proved it is not immutable either.

My 'bias' is just 'against' complexity here.

And technically, a no-SW Bitcoin Blockchain is tested for good over 8 years now.

BCH is practically running < 1MB atm so what is your point?   Sure - if big corps & masses decide this is less risky - so we are happy to see more here - that's how it works in growth phases - enough nodes will come with new players.

The 'everybody needs to run a full node' narrative just does not hold any more - we just need 'enough' - PoW and it's inherent external risks are pretty good aligned with decentralization pressure.

I very much hopefully wish that Bitcoin Cash blocks become regularly full that its lone developer's only option is to increase the blocks once again via another hard fork that would risk another chain split.

Yes I said "lone" developer because there's really only one. Hahaha.

Plus what do you mean by "enough nodes". Most of them are run by Roger Ver and Jihan Wu using Alibaba cloud services.

Meanwhile Bitcoin has the smartest people working on it. But we are off the topic now. Back to Cobra.

[hv_]

the very new SW protocol + moar complex road map (LN, 2nd Layer shit, nothing tested and ready soon)

or

BCH (= 8 y tested + little change to allow 8MB, but slow starting with <1MB in real = absolute ok, road map 32MB ... or 1GB ) ?

Or even

ETH, very young, not really scarce, Turing complete attack surface, scaling issues ^2 ...

you are just attacking SegWit and all that comes with it while hiding all the flaws in the other two which you mentioned here! which makes you comments here very biased and without any value.

lets see.
nothing about BCH is tested, the "8 y test" is the 1 MB blocks test not the 8 MB so that is the same. the flaws that will cause is that it makes running full nodes harder and harder by individuals in the long run if blocks become full not like so far with empty 100-200 kB blocks! and that leads to more centralization and eventually there can only be centralized master full nodes run by government agents instead of individuals all around the world and that kills bitcoin.

ETH is even worse! you can no longer start a full node, the sync is impossible at this point because how slow and HUGE the blockchain of it is. a simple surge of transactions can cripple the whole ETH network which will cripple not only ETH but also all the tokens that are based on it!
and worst but not last is the fact that ETH is centralized and ever since their roll back they proved it is not immutable either.

My 'bias' is just 'against' complexity here.

And technically, a no-SW Bitcoin Blockchain is tested for good over 8 years now.

BCH is practically running < 1MB atm so what is your point?   Sure - if big corps & masses decide this is less risky - so we are happy to see more here - that's how it works in growth phases - enough nodes will come with new players.

The 'everybody needs to run a full node' narrative just does not hold any more - we just need 'enough' - PoW and it's inherent external risks are pretty good aligned with decentralization pressure.

I very much hopefully wish that Bitcoin Cash blocks become regularly full that its lone developer's only option is to increase the blocks once again via another hard fork that would risk another chain split.

Yes I said "lone" developer because there's really only one. Hahaha.

Plus what do you mean by "enough nodes". Most of them are run by Roger Ver and Jihan Wu using Alibaba cloud services.

Meanwhile Bitcoin has the smartest people working on it. But we are off the topic now. Back to Cobra.

Well, yes - let's do (anti-bitcoin style!) and concentrate on a single / central individual ( Cobra in this case) .. to betters split and bash  ?

no - that's not good  - and luckily there is more behind Bitcoin than some (only to you?) known 'lone'  - these are damned to fail / die anyway ( try to understand anti - fragile) .

you are free to believe what you want  - If things go for Satoshi's Bitcoin - I'm with you.

Bitcoin (Cash) has lots of perspectives - removing the max_block_size parameter from the consensus protocol level might be just the lowest hanging fruit here.

[DooMAD]

Since we seem to be drifting away from the original topic, I'll ask again if anyone can give a justifiable reason why someone should be coerced into surrendering ownership of their property based on nothing more than a difference of opinion.  I don't think there's any threat to the bitcoin.org website.  We're yet to hear from anyone else directly invloved in the project to say they see any threat.  Greg Maxwell replied but isn't calling for heads to roll.  So, the only threat I see is to liberty itself, perpetuated by the OP, who clearly believes a difference of opinion is sufficient to organise a lynch mob.  Apparently you only have permission to own a domain name if they personally agree with everything you say.  That's news to me.

[Wind_FURY]

Well, yes - let's do (anti-bitcoin style!) and concentrate on a single / central individual ( Cobra in this case) .. to betters split and bash  ?

You say that, but you also say

you are free to believe what you want  - If things go for Satoshi's Bitcoin - I'm with you.

that.

Isn't saying that you would only follow "Satoshi's Bitcoin" also a centralization phrase? That is the worst kind of attitude to have in Bitcoin. It's the same with how the Ethereum community follows Vitalik Buterin unquestionably like a god.

Bitcoin (Cash) has lots of perspectives - removing the max_block_size parameter from the consensus protocol level might be just the lowest hanging fruit here.

That does not make it better.

[hv_]

Well, yes - let's do (anti-bitcoin style!) and concentrate on a single / central individual ( Cobra in this case) .. to betters split and bash  ?

You say that, but you also say

you are free to believe what you want  - If things go for Satoshi's Bitcoin - I'm with you.

that.

Isn't saying that you would only follow "Satoshi's Bitcoin" also a centralization phrase? That is the worst kind of attitude to have in Bitcoin. It's the same with how the Ethereum community follows Vitalik Buterin unquestionably like a god.

Bitcoin (Cash) has lots of perspectives - removing the max_block_size parameter from the consensus protocol level might be just the lowest hanging fruit here.

That does not make it better.

Why does nobody really know how many Satoshi was ?
 

IMHO this is Bitcoin > we should not care of single guys here, get the thing decentralized as much as the competition allows. I believe we need only a 'central' money for 'all', such hints to a central crypto ccy and yes - no space for ETH (maybe having a single guy there could be a reason for a failure?)  and other copies.  What computers and the internet can do, to serve these 'all' -> one perfect crypto should do and I fear BTC (++) has issues to achieve that - Cobra is one guy seeing this now and openly chats about + getting smacked.

[Wind_FURY]

Well, yes - let's do (anti-bitcoin style!) and concentrate on a single / central individual ( Cobra in this case) .. to betters split and bash  ?

You say that, but you also say

you are free to believe what you want  - If things go for Satoshi's Bitcoin - I'm with you.

that.

Isn't saying that you would only follow "Satoshi's Bitcoin" also a centralization phrase? That is the worst kind of attitude to have in Bitcoin. It's the same with how the Ethereum community follows Vitalik Buterin unquestionably like a god.

Bitcoin (Cash) has lots of perspectives - removing the max_block_size parameter from the consensus protocol level might be just the lowest hanging fruit here.

That does not make it better.

Why does nobody really know how many Satoshi was ?
 

Is that your argument? Really?

IMHO this is Bitcoin > we should not care of single guys here, get the thing decentralized as much as the competition allows.

Then drop the argument about "we forked to bigger blocks because we are following Satoshi's vision". Satoshi is, in essence, only a single guy. A centralization figure.

But if you continue arguing for "Satoshi's vision", then I will argue that "Satoshi's vision" is for the Lightning Network.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834752.0

[hv_]

Well, yes - let's do (anti-bitcoin style!) and concentrate on a single / central individual ( Cobra in this case) .. to betters split and bash  ?

You say that, but you also say

you are free to believe what you want  - If things go for Satoshi's Bitcoin - I'm with you.

that.

Isn't saying that you would only follow "Satoshi's Bitcoin" also a centralization phrase? That is the worst kind of attitude to have in Bitcoin. It's the same with how the Ethereum community follows Vitalik Buterin unquestionably like a god.

Bitcoin (Cash) has lots of perspectives - removing the max_block_size parameter from the consensus protocol level might be just the lowest hanging fruit here.

That does not make it better.

Why does nobody really know how many Satoshi was ?
 

Is that your argument? Really?

IMHO this is Bitcoin > we should not care of single guys here, get the thing decentralized as much as the competition allows.

Then drop the argument about "we forked to bigger blocks because we are following Satoshi's vision". Satoshi is, in essence, only a single guy. A centralization figure.

But if you continue arguing for "Satoshi's vision", then I will argue that "Satoshi's vision" is for the Lightning Network.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834752.0

Freedom of choice

You make up your own mind, Cobra does, that's fine.

As long as it is about Bitcoin for the masses (un-banked inclusion) - fine with me

Figure out how much complexity of the base protocol is 'ok' to reach these masses.