So Bitcoin Leaders what is your position on the ongoing Altcoinocide?

[k9quaint]

That is exactly my point. Neither the method of cryptography (specifically sharing the BTC hash method, initial friendly hashpower too small or non-existent) nor the facilitation of trade (exchanges on day one) met the minimum required levels.

The experiment was valuable because it identified serious flaws in the launch protocol of potential cryptocurrencies.

But it aint a currency if people can't spend it, and it aint cryptography if it gets cracked on day 1.

But it didn't get "cracked" ... and being cracked or not does not disqualify an algorithm from being crypto ... SHA1 is still crypto... just BAD crypto.

Being broken on the initial release of the algorithm absolutely disqualifies it as cryptography. If initially it is uncrackable and over time new methods come to light which degrade its effectiveness, that is one thing (specifically your SHA1 example, which is a hash, not encryption btw). But calling ROT26 an encryption algorithm is senseless and just playing at semantics. Blaming someone for cracking ROT26 is mindless and betrays a complete misunderstanding of what cryptography is for.

And it *could* have been used for a monetized form of trade and that is more the point than if it actually was traded... however if you count the people that were trading BTC in it at nearly the 0 hour then it *was* used for trade... just in BTC instead of bicycles.

If your uncle gets a sex change, he could be your aunt. Many things are possible, but before they become so, some things need to take place (turning an outie to an innie for instance). We don't judge based on what something might have been if incorrect assumptions are made (that everyone on the internet plays nice).

FYI, every potential encryption protocol goes through a testing period where some of the best math minds on the planet try to "destroy" it. Releasing something onto the world without an alpha or beta test and then blaming others for bugs is the work of a novice. Novices should stay out of the field of cryptography.
'

[1713946190]

1713946190

[1713946190]

1713946190

[1713946190]

1713946190

[1713946190]

1713946190

[makomk]

Being broken on the initial release of the algorithm absolutely disqualifies it as cryptography. If initially it is uncrackable and over time new methods come to light which degrade its effectiveness, that is one thing (specifically your SHA1 example, which is a hash, not encryption btw). But calling ROT26 an encryption algorithm is senseless and just playing at semantics. Blaming someone for cracking ROT26 is mindless and betrays a complete misunderstanding of what cryptography is for.

Errrm... you do realize that Bitcoin has more or less the same cryptographic flaw, right?

[k9quaint]

Being broken on the initial release of the algorithm absolutely disqualifies it as cryptography. If initially it is uncrackable and over time new methods come to light which degrade its effectiveness, that is one thing (specifically your SHA1 example, which is a hash, not encryption btw). But calling ROT26 an encryption algorithm is senseless and just playing at semantics. Blaming someone for cracking ROT26 is mindless and betrays a complete misunderstanding of what cryptography is for.

Errrm... you do realize that Bitcoin has more or less the same cryptographic flaw, right?

No, for four reasons:
First, bitcoin is not launching today. The flaw is at its worst during launch. Now it is much more difficult to execute, but not impossible. Ultimately, the security of any software relies on its users. You can't force them to follow correct protocols, and you can't prevent them from volunteering the secure information. Byzantine corruption is one of the classic problems that faces cryptography.

Second, when BTC was launched there was no pre-existing base of BTC specific hash power that could overwhelm all of the other early adopters.

Third, there was no such thing as pools of miners when BTC was launched.

Fourth, nobody knew what a cryptocurrency was, what it could be used for, or exchange it for anything other than barter. So there was no economic incentive at all to attack bitcoin. The only incentive would have been intellectual.

[k9quaint]

I am releasing 100 alt coins with merge mining in from day one. They will all be identical to Bitcoin, except their names won't start with "Bit" and they will use different port numbers (some of them are very secure because nobody checks port 1337!). I will then sue all the pool operators who fail to give me my merge mined alt coins.

Edit: Done. All of my new altcoins are released. Why are all the pool operators stealing everyone's coins?

[k9quaint]

I am releasing 100 alt coins with merge mining in from day one. They will all be identical to Bitcoin, except their names won't start with "Bit" and they will use different port numbers (some of them are very secure because nobody checks port 1337!). I will then sue all the pool operators who fail to give me my merge mined alt coins.

Edit: Done. All of my new altcoins are released. Why are all the pool operators stealing everyone's coins?

You ought to read other people's posts before assuming
you understand what they're complaining about.

You ought to have something to complain about before posting things for other people to read.

It has become clear that you and others in these threads have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between a pool operator and pool users.

As I understand it:
A pool user asks the pool for work.
The pool supplies work.
The user completes the work, and trades the results of that work for BTC & NMC.
The pool pays the BTC & NMC in return for the completed work.
If the results are valuable then the pool submits the results to a blockchain for a reward.
The pool executes no code on the user's machine.
The form of the work is well defined beforehand.
The user is under no obligation to ask for work, or complete it.
The result is half of a math equation (a fact) and thus not subject to copyright or patent.
The result was volunteered to the pool operator, so it is not subject to trade secret.

If you think Luke is a phallus for attacking a block chain that is fine, that is your opinion of him and you have every right to not like him for such a thing. To suggest he violated his user's trust is wrong. The user sold him a fact. The transaction was completed according to the agreed upon terms. Luke is free to use that fact in any way he sees fit. If you don't like how Luke uses facts, don't sell him any. There was (and still is) no agreement restricting Lukes use of facts.

[k9quaint]

You ought to have something to complain about before posting things for other people to read.

It has become clear that you and others in these threads have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between a pool operator and pool users.

As I understand it:
A pool user asks the pool for work.
The pool supplies work.
The user completes the work, and trades the results of that work for BTC & NMC.
The pool pays the BTC & NMC in return for the completed work.
If the results are valuable then the pool submits the results to a blockchain for a reward.
The pool executes no code on the user's machine.
The form of the work is well defined beforehand.
The user is under no obligation to ask for work, or complete it.
The result is half of a math equation (a fact) and thus not subject to copyright or patent.
The result was volunteered to the pool operator, so it is not subject to trade secret.

If you think Luke is a phallus for attacking a block chain that is fine, that is your opinion of him and you have every right to not like him for such a thing. To suggest he violated his user's trust is wrong. The user sold him a fact. The transaction was completed according to the agreed upon terms. Luke is free to use that fact in any way he sees fit. If you don't like how Luke uses facts, don't sell him any. There was (and still is) no agreement restricting Lukes use of facts.

Good argument, I'll use that in my defense at court when a rogue pool op figures out a way to use my hashing to encrypt and distribute child pr0n ... I'm sure it will fly with a judge!

It will. The same way that the car dealership will not end up in court for selling the pedobear his windowless white van. The same way Bushnell will not get in trouble for making and selling the binoculars the pedobear used to stalk his victims. The same way the construction company who built pedobears basement where he keeps the kids will not get in trouble.

You sold the results of a math equation that has plenty of legitimate uses. You had absolutely no say over what the results of that math equation are used for. You are mischaracterizing Lukes relationship with his users. The system would never work if Luke had *any* control over his users resources. Nobody should trust some random pool operator to run any code they like on their computer. That is why the parameters for the work are fixed beforehand, and why all the execution is done at the users behest, not the pool operator.

I'll take two guesses ...

    A) You're from the US

    B) You're a lawyer.


The way you approach this is typical of either or both:
no personal notion of actual right and wrong, and as long
as  something is not defined as wrong by the law or worded
as such in a contract then it's perfectly fine.

No wonder US folks needs so much religion to keep them
on the straight and narrow

I apologize for my posts that were well thought out and disagreed with your preconceived notions. I guess people who disagree with you in such a way that you cannot logically disprove their assertions are your definition of evil. I am glad that I do not share your "personal notion of actual right and wrong". If people used logic instead of visceral instincts, they wouldn't need a "moral compass" prepackaged in the form of religion.

[k9quaint]

Nobody should trust some random pool operator to run any code they like on their computer. That is why the parameters for the work are fixed beforehand, and why all the execution is done at the users behest, not the pool operator.

I'll go one step further: pools are evil, and you shouldn't use them,
whether the work is fixed beforehand or not changes nothing, as
luke has just demonstrated: he used his miners like a botnet operator
does his bots. I guess there's nothing wrong with that either: in the
end, the user probably willingly installed that infected app.

Your position is now much clearer. You hate all pool operators as you consider them to be evil and you view mining software as an infection. There is, in fact, no way for you to avoid hating Luke because he is a pool operator. I see now why you want to discourage all Eligius users from using that pool and to cast off the infected software that they have on their computers.

I do not share your views.

[DeathAndTaxes]

How about you look at it like this instead: if, in spite of the existence of a contract, a rule, a law explicitly drawing the line of what is right
or wrong, you consider the idea that if a very large number of people feel wronged, then something is probably not right ?

Worst idea ever.  So even if a contract says x is valid if people "feel" wronged you can be guilty of something?

The enforcement of contracts is the cornerstone of modern industry.  To overturn contract law based on feelings is got to be the stupidest thing I have heard today.

If contract says X and someone gets X buts feels wronged then they should look at contracts better or select a provider who advertizes they do/don't do the thing that person feels wronged about.

[NASDAQEnema]

Oh brother.

Both K & Z fail at logic.

One wants all injuries monetized.
The other wants the mob to decide.

Preventing the operation of a system built by someone else is wrong. However, as long as you are merely disruptive, I may not feel too bad about it. You come out trying to destroy and you will find me to be some quite fierce opposition.

LOGIC is the GLUE not the SUBSTANCE of a DECISION.

Stop using logic as a crutch and actually consider the other person's experience.

[DeathAndTaxes]

How about you look at it like this instead: if, in spite of the existence of a contract, a rule, a law explicitly drawing the line of what is right
or wrong, you consider the idea that if a very large number of people feel wronged, then something is probably not right ?

Worst idea ever.  So even if a contract says x is valid if people "feel" wronged you can be guilty of something?

The enforcement of contracts is the cornerstone of modern industry.  To overturn contract law based on feelings is got to be the stupidest thing I have heard today.

If contract says X and someone gets X buts feels wronged then they should look at contracts better or select a provider who advertizes they do/don't do the thing that person feels wronged about.

Did you somehow miss the part where I said "a large number of people" ?
How would you get laws changed without this ?

I don't care if it is a million people a contract is a contract.  Changing the law to make certain actions illegal is after the fact and would affect future contracts.  It doesn't change the fact that the contract is right at the time it was enforced and no amount of feelings can/should change that.

[k9quaint]

Nobody should trust some random pool operator to run any code they like on their computer. That is why the parameters for the work are fixed beforehand, and why all the execution is done at the users behest, not the pool operator.

I'll go one step further: pools are evil, and you shouldn't use them,
whether the work is fixed beforehand or not changes nothing, as
luke has just demonstrated: he used his miners like a botnet operator
does his bots. I guess there's nothing wrong with that either: in the
end, the user probably willingly installed that infected app.

Your position is now much clearer. You hate all pool operators as you consider them to be evil and you view mining software as an infection. There is, in fact, no way for you to avoid hating Luke because he is a pool operator. I see now why you want to discourage all Eligius users from using that pool and to cast off the infected software that they have on their computers.

I do not share your views.

Please do conflate issues, that is an unworthy tactic.

I do consider pools bad for the bitcoin ecosystem, and I certainly wish them
to eventually wither and die, but in the right manner: being replaced by
something better. p2pool is the first step in the right direction.

This however has got nothing to do with this discussion about eligius,
my mistake for mentioning what I thought about pools in general:
I have strictly no beef with the other pool operators, they aren't, as
far as I know abusing their miners. Unlike luke.

Fair enough. I accept your clarification on pools and their operators. Where you and I differ is whether Luke harmed his users. I believe he did not. I think Luke is only guilty of being a prick to the creator of CLC. Luke could have handled this situation in a much more mature fashion. Instead, he humiliated the CLC creator when he could have merely demonstrated the weakness in the altcoin and then backed off. If at that point, the creator of CLC still refuses to acknowledge the flaw, then take the gloves off and bodyslam the blockchain.

CLC did serve a valuable purpose. It demonstrated that there is a serious chicken & egg problem with launching altcoins.

[DeathAndTaxes]

How about you look at it like this instead: if, in spite of the existence of a contract, a rule, a law explicitly drawing the line of what is right
or wrong, you consider the idea that if a very large number of people feel wronged, then something is probably not right ?

Worst idea ever.  So even if a contract says x is valid if people "feel" wronged you can be guilty of something?

The enforcement of contracts is the cornerstone of modern industry.  To overturn contract law based on feelings is got to be the stupidest thing I have heard today.

If contract says X and someone gets X buts feels wronged then they should look at contracts better or select a provider who advertizes they do/don't do the thing that person feels wronged about.

Did you somehow miss the part where I said "a large number of people" ?
How would you get laws changed without this ?

I don't care if it is a million people a contract is a contract.  Changing the law to make certain actions illegal is after the fact and would affect future contracts.  It doesn't change the fact that the contract is right at the time it was enforced and no amount of feelings can/should change that.

If a million people show up on your doorstep with pitchforks and torches
to discuss a contract or a law they're not happy about, feel free to apply
rhetoric and explain to them the error of their ways, it ought to be interesting.

So mob violence is correct?  Might makes right? 

"Don't like your contract just beat a new contract out of the counterparty".  Yup sounds like a great basis for a prosperous society.

[Explodicle]

(my apologies for posting, since I'm not a Bitcoin leader)

The reason I believe this is because I think if we took everyone in
the pool and asked the question, they'd feel that they were taken
advantage of, in the same way you feel fucked in the ass by your
phone company when they charge you every month with random
crap fees you think you never signed up for (when in fact you probably
did, the contract being 20 pages long and written in 5 point font).

In a way, everyone in that pool HAS now been asked that question, and current pool hashing power should reflect their answer.

I WISH I had so many choices in phone companies as miners have in pools!

[NASDAQEnema]

(my apologies for posting, since I'm not a Bitcoin leader)

The reason I believe this is because I think if we took everyone in
the pool and asked the question, they'd feel that they were taken
advantage of, in the same way you feel fucked in the ass by your
phone company when they charge you every month with random
crap fees you think you never signed up for (when in fact you probably
did, the contract being 20 pages long and written in 5 point font).

In a way, everyone in that pool HAS now been asked that question, and current pool hashing power should reflect their answer.

I WISH I had so many choices in phone companies as miners have in pools!

How many even know?
How many care?

No matter. Whitehat derpxecutions like Luke's tactic will not work in the near future.

[2112]

You mean democracy ?
Yes. Until someone comes up with something better.

Maybe you've heard about the post-democratic invention called "republic"? You even may be living in one. Although in my experience majority of people don't understand the difference and think they are living in a "democracy".

Anyway, fun thread to read.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

The problem is not Luke attacking altcoins but Luke using his pool for attacking altcoins without his pool users knowing. This is a breach of trust.

No, the problem is precisely the fact that he's attacking altcoins. The fact that he's using other people's calculations and these random people tolerate this is the sad/shocking part.

Criminals will always exist. But there's no reason to believe pooled mining attracts more criminals than honest people. So, in regards to being criminals or not, miners are a "random population". And this event shows that lots of random people simply don't care about helping an attack towards innocents if such attack is irrelevant to them.

[makomk]

In a way, everyone in that pool HAS now been asked that question, and current pool hashing power should reflect their answer.

I WISH I had so many choices in phone companies as miners have in pools!

Not entirely. Luke-Jr keeps making statements that whilst technically true are carefully worded to mislead people into thinking that Eligius was not in fact merged mining CLC, and I think a few people have come to believe this. (Not that it'd probably make much difference anyway.)

[nanonano]

I don't care if it is a million people a contract is a contract.  Changing the law to make certain actions illegal is after the fact and would affect future contracts.  It doesn't change the fact that the contract is right at the time it was enforced and no amount of feelings can/should change that.

Out of interest, could you apply this logic to slavery -- activity that used to be legal and considered 'right' by many people? Remember that when you own slaves, you own their offspring too...

Our legal/financial systems just do not work like you seem to think or hope they do. Exceptions and changes to contracts _are_ forced quite frequently. There are severe negative side-effects to that (some of which you mentioned) so their use is generally a last option but it happens.

[FlipPro]

Everyone should just support Bitcoin...

[NASDAQEnema]

Everyone should just support Bitcoin...

You. Hafta. Be. Trolling.