Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[wpalczynski]

No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual    ).

.

not this again...

[1714291327]

1714291327

[1714291327]

1714291327

[1714291327]

1714291327

[shmadz]

No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual    ).

.

not this again...

Is it possible to prove that someone is full of shit if he never reveals the secret of the shit he is full of?

[ssmc2]

No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual    ).

.

not this again...

Hopefully he's at least revealing these things to his psychiatrist.

[wpalczynski]

No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual    ).

.

not this again...

Is it possible to prove that someone is full of shit if he never reveals the secret of the shit he is full of?

The thing is he has some good ideas from time to time and I'm sure if he joined an good open source project he might actually be able to contribute something meaningful instead of all this innuendo.

[pa]

This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/

[generalizethis]

Well I can guarantee you that someone who has posted on this thread within the last two pages, is aware of the mathematical proof of such. It isn't rocket science, and I am sure you could think of it, if you contemplated for a while how you would do it.

Note, I will probably in the near future be deleting many of my posts such as this one which are just noise.

Really? It's pretty obvious that you are fine with publicly scrutinizing other's ideas, but when it comes to your own work, feel that it is beneath him to deign to the criticisms of mere mortals. You're like a movie critic who fixes the flaws of others with his supreme powers of refinement, taste and technical prowess, but only lets his friends and family see select outtakes from his magnum opus.

[Peter R]

This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/

The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!

[justusranvier]

Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!

Maybe it's a good time to start talking about enabling fraud proofs that would allow SPV clients to reject invalid blocks.

[TPTB_need_war]

‎Sun Tzu 孫子兵法.

generalizethis et al, I submit to your criticism is valid on the asymmetry of my sharing (w.r.t. your area of specific concern, not my liberal sharing of my general economics insights).

Blasts from the past...

My goals are much wider in scope and I don't want to get bogged down in politics over which coin will win.

I am just stating that competition will bring out the best.

And I am saying that the anonymous coin and chain that has a wide distribution paradigm is not only more likely to win, but also more likely to be resilient (but I don't mean giving coins away that users dump for fiat).

Smooth is apparently being facetious as he is not convinced my idea can work.

I'm not convinced it can work nor that it can't.

Thanks. That would be my same opinion about Monero. Fair.

...I believe the only way to build an innovative ecosystem for ALL OF US (remember I want to put anonymity and remove the master-servant model on the entire internet, not just cryptocoins) that won't just be subsumed into Bitcoin's venture capital model, is to get a jumpstart in ecosystem momentum. I don't believe that jumpstart can be accomplished by giving your ideas away for free such that either venture capitalists can fund an Inverse Commons of open source to have the ideas implemented in their Bitcoin ecosystem or the capital interested in your design gets squandered on copycoin pumps that waste the capital and don't build out a competitive, innovative ecosystem.

In other words, I think open source Inverse Commons works very well, but it also falls prey at the start to the chicken-or-egg dilemma when trying to compete with an ecosystem that has turned us geeks into dogs who chase our own tail (working for the enemy to enslave us).

...

Edit: give away half-baked designs, those which are incomplete in terms of what the market will buy, or those which require more resources than you can bear to bring to market. To give away the golden egg is to assert the golden goose is dead. I am not dead yet.

Edit#2: as in all things one must weigh the probabilities. Thus it is also possible someone like myself might sell such a design, choosing to take the least risky route to compensation. Taking into account the factors that I am 50 and sick with a severe progressive illness (Multiple Sclerosis), and have nearly no assets to retire on. And am entirely unwilling to return to any Western country to work.

Edit#3: implicit in what I wrote above is the assumption that some percent of us are not happy about the future of the internet, Bitcoin, and the world on its current trajectory. Some of us want a decentralized internet, and not one owned by a few large fascist corporations. Some of us don't believe that Bitcoin won't end up with the same fate that the internet has. In short, some percent of us do believe a slide into an NWO is underway and we need a different trajectory. Additionally some of us think a micropayments coin could accumulate network effects exponentially faster Bitcoin and afaik the Lightning Networks (LN) on Bitcoin proposal won't enable the same N^2 network effects because it is not a decentralized model.

He's that good.

It is not me. It is you all are that good but you don't know how to organize yourselves except to be corralled by the banksters (even you don't know it). The only way to accomplish that is get a lot of capital focused on solving these problems. Right now all your capital is going to the utility and hardware companies. It is not being focused where it can actually form an ecosystem. The Bitcoin ecosystem is dominated by bankster whoreshipping venture capital (and your individual capital gets siphoned off by PoW and the shitcoins).

This is the reason you would buy my coin, because there will be an ecosystem that as a geek you will be damn proud of. And it will be your ecosystem, not mine. I am just here as the seed (who needs to as quickly as possibly set things on an open-source auto-pilot and get out of the way), and will hopefully be rewarded for my efforts so I can retire comfortably.

Somebody has to be crazy enough to try. Then the others will follow once they see it working.

Well then take solace in that I am working for you then because I (as AnonyMint) have been pushing for greater anonymity since 2013. And I am pushing for it not just in cryptocoins but also on the entire internet and my plans are much broader in scope than just cryptocoins.

To demonstrate that I am trying to be objective and not biased against CN, note that afaik in public documents that neither CT nor CCT can do on chain (i.e. autonomous, end-to-end principle compliant) hiding of input address as CN does, thus at least w.r.t. on chain anonymity are not untraceable and thus don't guard against breakage of fungibility (i.e. they don't make it impossible to do blacklisting, whitelisting, Hearn's redlisting, etc). Both CT and CCT can apparently do off chain (non-autonomous, not end-to-end principle compliant, suffer from simultaneity requirement, can be DoS jammed[1] as I first pointed out in Gmaxwell's CoinJoin thread) address hiding such as CoinJoin:

Most importantly, this scheme is compatible with pruning and does not make the verification state for Bitcoin grow forever. It is also compatible with CoinJoin and CoinSwap, allowing for transaction graph privacy as well while simultaneously fixing the most severe limitation of these approaches to privacy (that transaction amounts compromise their privacy).

Taint tracking is inherently against the fungibility property of money.  

Aside, as TierNolan pointed out-- this composes perfectly with coinjoin and coinswap, and the interface is setup to facilitate coinjoin already; in coinjoin the participants need not learn each others values.  And in the case of coinswaps the swap transactions can be made indistinguishable from ordinary payments to a single key due to the switch to schnorr signatures.

Perhaps you've not caught on that this makes coinjoins and coinswaps tremendously more private and useful; since joining with anyone at any time improves your privacy, with no need to coordinate values.

You can think of it in these terms:  CoinJoin and CoinSwap are efficient metadata privacy protection systems, but their effectiveness is undermined by the content not being private.  CT is a content privacy system. The two compose very nicely. (And the RPCs in elements should be all setup to integrate with external coinjoin.).

Aside, as TierNolan pointed out-- this composes perfectly with coinjoin and coinswap, and the interface is setup to facilitate coinjoin already; in coinjoin the participants need not learn each others values.  And in the case of coinswaps the swap transactions can be made indistinguishable from ordinary payments to a single key due to the switch to schnorr signatures.

[1] Unless you allow a trusted masternode such as in DRK's design, but this another form of threat to anonymity.

P.S. If you notice this thread getting shorter, it is because I am deleting some of my past posts which I feel were not important and/or referred too strongly to vaporware. I am cleaning house and am on page 10 of my post history, so hurry if you want to quote any older post that I might delete in the next minutes.

[sickpig]

Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!

Maybe it's a good time to start talking about enabling fraud proofs that would allow SPV clients to reject invalid blocks.

This.

The problem is that miners, or at least a large part of them, SPV mining i.e. they mine on top of previous block without performing full validation on it.

In this case even if you were mining along with the lastest version of Bitcoin core you would have been vulnerable.

[sickpig]

This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/

The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!

since BIP66 has been activated only after 95% of the last 2k blocks was v3 blocks, it means f2pool already has produced BIP66 blocks before the incident, in fact last time I checked f2pool had ~20% of the total hashing power.

so by definition f2pool was BIP66 compliant before the fork.

the problem is that a lot of miners are "SPV mining", among them: f2pool and antpool

[rpietila]

Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)[/b]

First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.

Funny how I never read that in the Bible. Maybe it is the the lost Hitler Bible meant to replace the King James version

John 8:44 (KJV):
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Paraphrasing added "banksters", because it is logically not true that ALL jews are such hateful murderers and liars. I know jews who don't follow evil (and whites and blacks who do). Murderers was changed to liars, which was included because of context. The whole burst was because there are rules in banking, and old ladies put their money in expecting the rules to be followed.

I have been advised to delete the original post because "it does not reflect well on me". It is too late anyway, it is been discussed and quoted, and 8:44 did not reflect Jesus well either, up to the point that it is believed to be a Hitler addition! 

John 8:45-47:
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

And naturally it ended up with the jews trying to kill Jesus, just as they do these days to people who acknowledge them as who they are (again: only the bankster jews and goyim who lick their boots are targeted here, any of my jew-friends are not included, and I don't mean that jews are exempt of chastisement, I will tell to face if a jew I know is a hateful liar, and have told, as well as every man)

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself - -


There is no known mechanism how being an experimental natural scientist in the field of gravity could make these words become untrue, perhaps the critic should examine if his logic has other voids as glaring as this... 

If possible, let's move this to another thread if someone still wants to continue.

[Cconvert2G36]

If possible, let's move this to another thread if someone still wants to continue.

Nah, you've said more than I ever could. Terviseks!

[Wexlike]

How did this religious bullshit end up in this informative thread?

[iCEBREAKER]

How did this religious bullshit end up in this informative thread?

Well, Frap.doc joined the heretical efforts to undermine orthodox 1MB blocks, and so the Great Schism moved over here.

Perhaps last night's fork reminded him how lucky we are to have core devs keeping our moon rocket on course?

Things we learned:

-ostensible "95%" compliance with BIP66 was actually 64% (implying GavinCoin's "75%" threshold will be a disaster)

-the free folk must be able to run their own full nodes, because SPV is a cool toy but not reliable for anything critical

-larger blocks, by taking longer to verify, increase private incentive for header-only mining while exacerbating its socialized negative consequences

[Peter R]

This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/

The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!

since BIP66 has been activated only after 95% of the last 2k blocks was v3 blocks, it means f2pool already has produced BIP66 blocks before the incident, in fact last time I checked f2pool had ~20% of the total hashing power.

so by definition f2pool was BIP66 compliant before the fork.

the problem is that a lot of miners are "SPV mining", among them: f2pool and antpool

This is not quite true.  It's important we understand exactly what happened to prevent people from spinning this incident to strengthen their blocksize limit position.

Here's what happened:
   - BTC Nuggets mined block #363,731.  It was not BIP66 compliant.
   - F2Pool began mining on this block before they had validated its contents (SPV mining).
   - F2Pool should have orphaned block #363,731 as soon as they realized it was invalid.
   - However, F2Pool kept mining on this invalid block.
   - F2Pool hit a lucky streak and mined two more blocks (#363,732 and #363,733), pulling this invalid chain further ahead.
   - AntPool seemed to act similarly, and mined block #363,734 ontop of the invalid chain.
   - F2Pool quickly mined two more blocks on this chain (6 confs).
   - Finally, the rest of the network "pulled ahead" (the valid chain became longer) and F2Pool and AntPool finally orphaned their invalid chain.  



The incident was not caused by SPV mining for the few moments it takes to validate the latest block.  It was caused by F2Pool (and AntPool) never getting around to actually validating the blocks.  

[Peter R]

Perhaps last night's fork reminded him how lucky we are to have core devs keeping our moon rocket on course?

The fork resolved itself automatically.  Human intervention wasn't required.  

Things we learned:

-ostensible "95%" compliance with BIP66 was actually 64% (implying GavinCoin's "75%" threshold will be a disaster)

Do you consider what happened last night "a disaster"?

-the free folk must be able to run their own full nodes, because SPV is a cool toy but not reliable for anything critical

Did any double-spending occur during this longest forking event since 2013?

Also, if a SPV client was connected to trustworthy full nodes, its user would not be in danger of being double-spent on.  

-larger blocks, by taking longer to verify, increase private incentive for header-only mining while exacerbating its socialized negative consequences

The problem was they never validated the blocks at all.  It wouldn't have mattered if the blocks were 10 kB or 50 MB.

The great thing is that the 100 BTC loss by F2Pool and the 25 BTC loss by AntPool should motivate them to begin validating the blocks properly.

[cypherdoc]

This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/

The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!

since BIP66 has been activated only after 95% of the last 2k blocks was v3 blocks, it means f2pool already has produced BIP66 blocks before the incident, in fact last time I checked f2pool had ~20% of the total hashing power.

so by definition f2pool was BIP66 compliant before the fork.

the problem is that a lot of miners are "SPV mining", among them: f2pool and antpool

This is not quite true.  It's important we understand exactly what happened to prevent people from spinning this incident to strengthen their blocksize limit position.

Here's what happened:
   - BTC Nuggets mined block #363,731.  It was not BIP66 compliant.
   - F2Pool began mining on this block before they had validated its contents (SPV mining).
   - F2Pool should have orphaned block #363,731 as soon as they realized it was invalid.
   - However, F2Pool kept mining on this invalid block.
   - F2Pool hit a lucky streak and mined two more blocks (#363,732 and #363,733), pulling this invalid chain further ahead.
   - AntPool seemed to act similarly, and mined block #363,734 ontop of the invalid chain.
   - F2Pool quickly mined two more blocks on this chain (6 confs).
   - Finally, the rest of the network "pulled ahead" (the valid chain became longer) and F2Pool and AntPool finally orphaned their invalid chain.  



The incident was not caused by SPV mining for the few moments it takes to validate the latest block.  It was caused by F2Pool (and AntPool) never getting around to actually validating the blocks.  

There's a reason I've been updating this thread routinely for the" defensive blocks". It seemed likely something might happen.  No one predicted it would be a fork like this.

Which begs the question, is this a result of consistently hitting an artificial limit that was always meant to be lifted?

[cypherdoc]

How did this religious bullshit end up in this informative thread?

Well, Frap.doc joined the heretical efforts to undermine orthodox 1MB blocks, and so the Great Schism moved over here.

Perhaps last night's fork reminded him how lucky we are to have core devs keeping our moon rocket on course?

Things we learned:

-ostensible "95%" compliance with BIP66 was actually 64% (implying GavinCoin's "75%" threshold will be a disaster)

-the free folk must be able to run their own full nodes, because SPV is a cool toy but not reliable for anything critical

-larger blocks, by taking longer to verify, increase private incentive for header-only mining while exacerbating its socialized negative consequences

iCEBLow continuing to blow ice.

I think what this is showing us is that ANY cap is a mistake.

As blocks become increasingly full, as I've said before, spammers become more emboldened as it doesn't cost much to fill blocks (less spam needed than before). I've been watching the defensive blocks closely as is clear what the motivations of f2pool have been as they have told us what they are. Except its worse than what we expected; they aren't bothering to validate the full block. Thus, we get what we got with an upgrade change that wasn't widely implemented.

Without a cap, spammers won't have this well identified ceiling with which to target. It all becomes much more fuzzy and expensive for them. Remember that their primary objective right now is to screw up the user experience to continue to cripple Bitcoin growth. Without a cap, miners will be forced to pay attention not only to fully validating their blocks but building efficiently sized blocks which will solve any latency issues they might encounter. and the spammers would have to dramatically increase their expense.

One doesn't even need to enact the spam scenario. What I've said even applies to organic growth that keeps hitting the 1MB choke.

 

[wallcandy]

...
look up the definition of a shill.

"Unprincipled lying scumbag" is, technically, more accurate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389