Cracking the Code

[Etlase2]

Folks please realize that Etlase2 feels he is a competitor to me because he is working on Decrits (not proof-of-work) and I am possibly working on a proof-of-work altcoin.

So he has a vested interest to discredit any attack I have described which my potential altcoin would fix. This is pure selfishness at the cost of bettering our crypto-currency future. I am very disappointed to see him stoop this low in his ethics. I had higher hopes on him and his altcoin.

You have done a well enough job discrediting yourself. Sorry if you can't handle it when someone who actually knows what they're talking about addresses your points.

This requires a huge suspension of disbelief, something I am not fond of doing unless I am watching a movie or reading a book. Bitcoin and its ilk, quite unlike EFT, are push transactions, not pull. I'm sure somewhere in the decapages of rants you have on this subject you've touched on this, but I and everyone else following this argument should find it excessively unlikely that the masses will be so willing to give up the newfound power of being their own bank to Amazon or whomever for the sake of "1-click purchases", when the reality is URIs can make it pretty darn close to that as it is.

If this is the basis for your argument, it's pathetic.

Complete nonsense and FUD.

Spending "one-click" on Amazon would not require that balances be kept offchain in an Amazon wallet. Why do you guys keep repeating this offchain nonsense. I never claimed that!

Where did I claim that? I quoted myself so you can see that I didn't.

Amazon's customers will still keep their balances onchain, and the Amazon "1-click" will simply deduct from the block chain with a normal block chain transaction.

What I did claim is that it would require a big suspension of disbelief to think that this will be the norm. Of course, it's a requirement for your nonsensical attack.

And isn't just an altcoin, because of the havok wrecked by double-spends one into each chain

Not only is it an altcoin, it's already been done. Guess what? It went nowhere.

and also the attacker's excess hash rate applied to dropping transactions from the shorter chain. No solution can stop the attacker from putting his customers' transactions in those valid blocks on the shorter chain and delaying everyone else in the shorter chain.

And this is completely tertiary to your attack, and is a standard attack against bitcoin as I pointed out.

By which Gavin-God do you guarantee that all nodes will choose that choice?

It is a matter of consensus. Which I pointed out in the prior post, and defeated you again, by saying:

Trying to hamfist a change like this on the bitcoin population should be no less difficult than changing the bitcoin protocol itself, therefore there is little advantage to one major cartel over everyone not part of the cartel.

What the fuck do amazon customers care if their transactions confirm quicker? Amazon is in control of everything anyway, under your scenario.

[1714029076]

1714029076

[1714029076]

1714029076

[1714029076]

1714029076

[1714029076]

1714029076

[1714029076]

1714029076

[1714029076]

1714029076

[BurtW]

Which chain is the correct one?

The one that contains only valid blocks which contain valid transactions.

Any other chain is a new alt coin and is not Bitcoin.

I am pretty sure most people are going to give up on that insecure shorter chain which you call "Bitcoin" and "valid". For the masses it will feel like "invalid". Your technical arguments won't matter at all to them.

Your opinion.  We shall see.

[AnonyMint]

If I understand correctly, this is important for example because your public address is not revealed until you spend from it.

How many freshly created public addresses that have yet to be funded and linked to is needed to negate the above?

You don't reveal your public address to the network when it is funded. The sender will hash your public address and send the hash to the network. Bitcoin 101.

Or did I miss your point?

[AnonyMint]

Which chain is the correct one?

The one that contains only valid blocks which contain valid transactions.

Any other chain is a new alt coin and is not Bitcoin.

I am pretty sure most people are going to give up on that insecure shorter chain which you call "Bitcoin" and "valid". For the masses it will feel like "invalid". Your technical arguments won't matter at all to them.

Your opinion.  We shall see.

Your definition of "valid" requires 100% top-down, centralized control. When given a conflict of chains, the merchants are going to be confused, because customers will demand they honor the coins they received on each chain. Customers are innocent. Why should they suffer?

I see you believe in a top-down, centralized crypto-currency.

Well I believe only a currency that is decentralized will survive because top-down, centralized is very easy to attack.

That is more than an opinion, it is intelligence.

[BurtW]

If I understand correctly, this is important for example because your public address is not revealed until you spend from it.

How many freshly created public addresses that have yet to be funded and linked to is needed to negate the above?

You don't reveal your public address to the network when it is funded. The sender will hash your public address and send the hash to the network. Bitcoin 101.

Or did I miss your point?

Bruno,

this is not the thread you were looking for (just an old jedi mind trick)

[BurtW]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

[AnonyMint]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

Thanks for confirming I won the argument by resorting to FUD (grasping at threads).

[BurtW]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

Good to see I won the argument. Now you resort to FUD.

Have no answer I see.

[Etlase2]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

Actually, as long as the format remains the same which the silly alt that attempted this did (I don't remember what it was called, maybe bitcoin2?), any transactions you make that are valid on either chain will propagate to both. Otherwise the alt would specifically have to create a new addressing/tx format incompatible with bitcoin1 and simply carry over the original tx out set.

[AnonyMint]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

Good to see I won the argument. Now you resort to FUD.

Have no answer I see.

They can cash in your shorter chain as fast as they can too.

You have no answer I see:

Your definition of "valid" requires 100% top-down, centralized control. When given a conflict of chains, the merchants are going to be confused, because customers will demand they honor the coins they received on each chain. Customers are innocent. Why should they suffer?

I see you believe in a top-down, centralized crypto-currency.

Well I believe only a currency that is decentralized will survive because top-down, centralized is very easy to attack.

That is more than an opinion, it is intelligence.

[BadBear]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

Good to see I won the argument. Now you resort to FUD.

Have no answer I see.

You have no answer I see:

Your definition of "valid" requires 100% top-down, centralized control. When given a conflict of chains, the merchants are going to be confused, because customers will demand they honor the coins they received on each chain. Customers are innocent. Why should they suffer?

I see you believe in a top-down, centralized crypto-currency.

Well I believe only a currency that is decentralized will survive because top-down, centralized is very easy to attack.

That is more than an opinion, it is intelligence.

You can't refute the facts, so you resort to ad hom attacks, then say you won because nobody bothers to respond to it?

[AnonyMint]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

Actually, as long as the format remains the same which the silly alt that attempted this did (I don't remember what it was called, maybe bitcoin2?), any transactions you make that are valid on either chain will propagate to both. Otherwise the alt would specifically have to create a new addressing/tx format incompatible with bitcoin1 and simply carry over the original tx out set.

If the shorter chain is propagating transactions from the longer chain, it is no longer ignoring it and thus giving it credibility.

Comparing this attack to some attack that did not have sufficient hash rate, staying power, and didn't attack when Bitcoin is widespread and valuable is not a credible retort.

Amazon's customers will still keep their balances onchain, and the Amazon "1-click" will simply deduct from the block chain with a normal block chain transaction.

What I did claim is that it would require a big suspension of disbelief to think that this will be the norm. Of course, it's a requirement for your nonsensical attack.

Use of "nonsensical" is FUD. You have disproven nothing.

and also the attacker's excess hash rate applied to dropping transactions from the shorter chain. No solution can stop the attacker from putting his customers' transactions in those valid blocks on the shorter chain and delaying everyone else in the shorter chain.

And this is completely tertiary to your attack, and is a standard attack against bitcoin as I pointed out.

It is not tertiary, it adds to the motivation to join the longer chain.

[AnonyMint]

You can't refute the facts, so you resort to ad hom attacks, then say you won because nobody bothers to respond to it?

I refuted all the points.

Readers can see you all trying to obfuscate and run away from the points I have made.

[Etlase2]

If the shorter chain is propagating transactions from the longer chain, it is no longer ignoring it and thus giving it credibility.

Jesus you are clueless.

[AnonyMint]

If the shorter chain is propagating transactions from the longer chain, it is no longer ignoring it and thus giving it credibility.

Jesus you are clueless.

Since you are apparently too stoopid (or is that you just intentionally spreading more FUD?), let me spell it out for you.

If those nodes who go for the longer chain, find that the shorter chain is also grabbing those transactions and placing them in blocks in the shorter chain too, then their coins will always be valid every where the shorter chain is accepted by merchants as well every where the longer chain is accepted by merchants.

[BurtW]

Good night, happy alt chain dreams everyone.

[AnonyMint]

Thanks. Let's end this sh8t. And you guys wonder why I get arrogant and pissed off.

Time for action. Enough of this talk!

[Etlase2]

then their coins will always be valid every where the shorter chain is accepted by merchants as well every where the longer chain is accepted by merchants.

Yet another fundamental misunderstanding of the bitcoin protocol brought to you by anonymint. Perhaps you should grasp the concept in its entirety before producing theoretical attacks? Don't you think that that is a minimum requirement? Why do you have to say things like "it is my understanding"? Why don't you actually understand it before acting like you know everything?

[BurtW]

BTW:  when you branch off a new alt coin as in your scenario here everyone that has Bitcoins at that point also gets the same number of your new alt coins.  We can cash them all in!  We can cash them all in as fast as we can find some poor sucker that want to buy them (for real Bitcoins).  We can increase our Bitcoin holdings as we crash your silly little alt coin and pound it into the dust.

Those poor saps that are left holding your new alt would be the real losers - hopefully your cartel.

Actually, as long as the format remains the same which the silly alt that attempted this did (I don't remember what it was called, maybe bitcoin2?), any transactions you make that are valid on either chain will propagate to both. Otherwise the alt would specifically have to create a new addressing/tx format incompatible with bitcoin1 and simply carry over the original tx out set.

My bad.

[AnonyMint]

then their coins will always be valid every where the shorter chain is accepted by merchants as well every where the longer chain is accepted by merchants.

Yet another fundamental misunderstanding of the bitcoin protocol brought to you by anonymint. Perhaps you should grasp the concept in its entirety before producing theoretical attacks? Don't you think that that is a minimum requirement? Why do you have to say things like "it is my understanding"? Why don't you actually understand it before acting like you know everything?

If a transaction exists on the shorter chain, then its outputs can be spent on the shorter chain.

If a transaction exists on the longer chain, then its outputs can be spent on the longer chain.

If the shorter and longer chains are copying each other's transactions (where they don't conflict), then the outputs can be spent on both chains. Once a conflict occurs, you have double-spend and the two chains can't copy each other.

Can we end this sh8t now! This is wasting my scarce time. I have work to do. Make your point clear and let's be done with this talk!