Someone was pitching today to me that you are garlonicon and vjudeu.
Well, we know each other, and there are some things, which we did together (for example
that puzzle, where the first deposit is from me, the second from vjudeu, and the third from garlonicon, who won our local challenge, and picked the change destination). But there are more people than our trio inside our network. We know enough to use
2P ECDSA in practice, and hide huge multisigs behind even P2PK in trustless way, if needed. But all we do is just sharing ideas, brainstorming them, and posting with random time delay. But to join the group, you need an invitation, and I am not the one who can share it. Also, it is quite technical group, with many software developers, so if you are not a programmer, then you probably wouldn't enjoy it anyway.
Also note, that some people wouldn't tell you that, if they wouldn't catch our bait. Which means, that if someone thinks, that some accounts are just my alts, then it means, that we wanted to spread that information. But so far, nobody is clever enough to connect all the dots, and there is no reason to do so, because then, we could stop posting, and from whom people would got technical details then? To which accounts would they send their merits, if all of our group would be dissolved? Maybe to some AI spammers, which are recently active in bitcointalk?
Many people know, who am I. Many people know, what happened in 2015, when I tried to experimentally discover, if Satoshi is a group, or a single person, and formed some coordinated network, where people could test it in practice, and see, if anyone would notice, if something is written by some skilled individual, or if it is a collective effort, reviewed by many, rewritten by one publisher, and posted by one public sender.
But they don't have enough incentive to doxx me, and they know, that if they do, then I will do the same things, as I did back then, and just move somewhere else, just like Satoshi did, when too many people wanted to find out the truth. I already left some C++ forum, and some assembler forum. I can leave Bitcoin forum at any time. Governments are introducing KYC/AML, and making things harder, so at some point, I may be forced to leave Bitcoin anyway. That mainnet puzzle is one of our latest activity on mainnet, but we don't have much coins, and our initial plan was to stop buying Bitcoin since the end of 2024, but fortunately, some governments are lazy enough, that they didn't introduce some MICA rules in the whole Europe yet.
You lil sneaker!!! It kinda makes sense, but I'd think you would have done your signature differently... but who knows?
It is easier to fool people, than it is to convince them, that they were fooled. And even if you assume, that it is true, then maybe I want to encourage people to think, that they are my alts, and hide my real goals? Anyway, after being here since 2015, reaching Legendary is no longer a challenge for me, if you assume, that they are my alts, and I did it twice. I saw enough things, to post just for fun, instead of participating in signature campaigns like vjudeu did. And if you watch us more closely, then you will know, when I disagreed with Garlo Nicon, and why, and then you would know, if we are the same person or not.
I am here to share some knowledge, see some people's reactions, teach them something, and sometimes also learn something useful. But there are many interesting things I can do, so I am not forced to be here, and I believe nobody sane would want to ban me, and encourage me to move to other things.
But, only time will tell. So far, our experiment works fine since 2015. And it is up to the community, how long they would tolerate our presence here.
This is the human experience... not a dev vs dev thing.
Bitcoin was "dev vs dev" from the very beginning. It was always like that. Regular users are not skilled enough, to push us forward, they can only use, what developers invented. They are of course also useful, their trading brings value to the mainnet, their adoption makes it easier to exchange coins for real goods and services. But I am more interested in "dev vs dev" games, because this is what can make a difference. Writing software is a fascinating journey, and I feel sad, when I think, that many people would never enjoy it, because of lack of skills, or not putting enough effort, to participate in such games.
Also, having dev skills is what can give you an edge over others. If you know, how SHA-256 works, then you can optimize your miners, and produce more coins in early days, just like Patoshi did. If you know, how signatures works, then you can trustlessly execute many contracts, without going through third party, and make it appear like a single user under single public key, wrapped in any address type, including just P2PK, and fool everyone into thinking, that a single person did it.
It's more complicated than your strongly held opinion, which it's totally fine to think 1 empty can is worthless... but don't get pissed at the recycling center or try to burn it down!
But the recycling center was initially a playground. First users made it, to test their cans, before making real ones, and using them in production. They used radioactive materials, and played many dangerous games, only to find out, what is safe, and what is not, and try things, which they never would with real cans, sold to the real customers.
If we are going to put together an "aggressive pool," can we at least smoke BSV first?
When test coins are no longer worthless, then attacking one altcoin is the same as attacking another altcoin. It was a fun game to move test coins in blocks somewhere below 40k, when there was our group, versus other developers from Core, and some other groups. Then we knew, that nobody is harmed by our tests, because nobody traded anything for any real coins. But now, attacking anything, which is worth non-zero mainnet satoshis, has its legal consequences. And then, it is a question about possible risks: if you are not worried about being sued by BSV crowd, then go on. If you know, how testnet with its low hashrate can be attacked, then exactly the same thing can be repeated on any copycat coin you pick, as long as they didn't alter the rules too much (the funny thing about for example BCH is their 10-blocks rule, where you can do some attack, and set it in stone, so that nobody will revert it). Also, when it comes to BSV, then of course it was used in many different ways. One of the ongoing attack is when blocks are so heavy, that there is a lot of free relay. The centralization pressure is very high, and some SPV-like nodes can be tricked in many ways, when users no longer download full blocks, but work only on simplified proofs. And when block explorers stop showing BSV chain, because of being too bloated, then it also tells us something.
They definitely deserve it before the nice little friendly honest Testnet exchange, trying to provide a service that fills a demand for Bitcoin.
Which also discouraged some developers from using it for more serious attacks. Because if you know, that you can harm some innocent users, then you are less willing to attack these testnets, even if you can. Which means, that the main purpose of testnet existence (which is testing attacks) is no longer there, so it is needed to try something else, like signet, regtest, or invent and deploy something new (which is one of the things I am working on, for example by trying Proof of Work inside Script, and deploying decentralized sidechains with different rules on different chains).
